BARRIERS AND BRIDGES: AMERICAN INDIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
STUDENT RESILIENCY AND SUCCESS
Tamara Christine Cheshire
B.S., Oregon State University, 1993
M.A., Oregon State University, 1997
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2012
Copyright © 2012
Tamara Christine Cheshire
All rights reserved
ii
BARRIERS AND BRIDGES: AMERICAN INDIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
STUDENT RESILIENCY AND SUCCESS
A Dissertation
by
Tamara Christine Cheshire
Approved by Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Carlos Nevarez, Ph.D., Chair
Dr. Deborah Travis, Ed.D.
Dr. Marybeth Buechner, Ph.D.
Dr. Rhonda Rios Kravitz, D.P.A.
SPRING 2012
iii
BARRIERS AND BRIDGES: AMERICAN INDIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
STUDENT RESILIENCY AND SUCCESS
Student: Tamara Christine Cheshire
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this dissertation is suitable for shelving in the library and credit is
to be awarded for the dissertation.
, Director
Carlos Nevarez, Ph.D.
Date
iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to Native students and educators.
For Native Students: It is my hope that one day the barriers Native students
experience will cease to exist. Until then, be strong and continue to fight for the survival
of our people.
For educators: As educators we must never forget that it is the education system,
not the race or ethnicity of the student that has placed the student at a disadvantage
(Villalpando, 2004).
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First I want to thank the Native students who participated in this study. Without
them this would not have been possible. I appreciate and respect them for standing tall in
the face of oppression and I am honored that they shared their voices with me so that I
could share their experiences with the world.
I thank my mom Ann for inspiring me when I was young to follow my dreams
and for helping me to realize that life is not worth living unless you stand up for what you
believe. I thank my mother Carolyn and father Cal for believing in and supporting me in
my dreams. I want to thank and acknowledge my husband Walter for taking care of
everything, the house and the kids and for helping me with the dissertation. You were
there when I needed you. I want to thank my girls Jordan and River for understanding
what I needed to accomplish and for allowing me the time during their time of growth
and learning to continue to learn and grow myself. I also want to acknowledge my
grandbabies Gary, Ryen and Jodi. I did this study to change your future experiences in
education. A special thank you to my oldest daughter Ana for helping me out with my
lectures and for providing moral support. Thanks to my younger daughter Terri, my sons
Joshua, Matt and Seth, my brother John, sisters Jodi and Nina, nieces Cathy and Jackie,
my nephews Joseph and Joe for being so supportive, for checking in with me and
cheering me on during the difficult times. An extra special thank you and sincere
appreciation to my sister Katie for helping with the references, editing and moral and
spiritual support and for being there on the phone until all hours of the morning.
vi
I want to thank my committee: Dr. Carlos Nevarez, Dr. Debbie Travis, Dr.
Rhonda Rios Kravitz and Dr. Marybeth Buechner for your guidance, support and
understanding which kept me going. I have much appreciation, respect and admiration
for the transformational work you do daily to assist students. On that note, there were
many professors in the EDD program who made a significant impact in my life: Dr.
Borunda, Dr. Bishop, Dr. Castellano, Dr. Leon, Dr. Kitada, Dr. Jez, Dr. Turner, Dr. Britt
and Dr. Rodriguez. Thank you for believing in me and for challenging me to learn new
transformative ways to view education. Thank you Dr. Dinis who is the Chair of the
CSUS Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects
Thank you to my colleagues Carl, Pam, Bill, Nancy, Brita, Robyn, Sherri, Holly,
Riad and Norm for understanding and lending a sympathetic ear. A big thank you for the
PRIE Office at Sacramento City College, Anne and Jay the greatest research data analysts
in the world! Thank you to students who assisted me in this study: Joanna, Richard,
Raechel, Emma, Teresa, Tabitha, Lucia, Michael, Metti, Tyler and Dianne. A thank you
to my friends who listened to me complain and who watched my girls when I needed to
write: Jennie, Barb, Karin, Terrie and Deborah. Special thanks to Cohort 3: Diana, Eva,
LaWanda, Remy, Timo, Eddie, Jenni, Linda, Colleen, Lauren, Rebecca, Fawzia, Maha,
Nasserine, Lundon, Rita, Joe, Joann, Lourd, Nate, and Viri, your support was
unwaivering. Shelly Hoover, who became my sister who linked arms with me during the
good times and bad, thank you so much for inspiring me to be a transformational,
transformative leader and for always being there when I need you. And to my editor and
vii
formatter Meredith, thank you for going above and beyond and for being so supportive.
You are amazing.
viii
CURRICULUM VITAE
Education
M.A. Interdisciplinary Studies: Anthropology, Women’s Studies & Human
Development and Family Studies
Oregon State University, October 1997
B.S. American Studies Major, English Literature Minor, Ethnic Studies Emphasis
Oregon State University, June 1993
Certificate
Certificate
Online Teaching and Learning • Cerro Coso College, 2000
Sacramento City College Summer Institute Online Teaching, 2000
Professional Employment
Adjunct Professor Anthropology & Ethnic Studies – Native American Studies
01/1999 - Present
Sacramento City College
Adjunct Professor Anthropology • California State University, Sacramento
01/2002 - Present
Adjunct Professor Anthropology • Cosumnes River College
08/2006-12/2008
Adjunct Professor Anthropology • Sierra Community College
01/2004-05/2004
Adjunct Professor Family & Consumer Sciences • California State University,
Sacramento 09/2000-05/2002-02/1999-05/1999
Adjunct Professor, Anthropology • Folsom Lake College 07/1999-05/2001
Adjunct Professor, Family & Consumer Sciences • American River College
Summer 2000
Cultural Awareness Center Coordinator Native American Longhouse • Oregon State
University
06/1991-06/1993
Professional Publications
Academic Advisory Board for the publication: Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Social
Issues, McGraw-Hill
Academic Advisory Board for the publication: Annual Editions: Physical Anthropology,
McGraw-Hill
Article Review: Kinship Care Among Latinos and Native Americans: Needs and Issues
of Latino & Native
American Non-Parental Relative Caregivers: Strengths & Challenges within a Cultural
Context.
Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal Special Issue: Celebrating Cultural
Diversity, Family & Consumer Sciences
ix
Article Review: Comparison of Environmentally Responsible Consumerism & Voluntary
Simplicity Lifestyle Between U.S. & Japanese Female College Students Family &
Consumer Sciences Research Journal Special Issue: Celebrating Cultural
Diversity, Family & Consumer Sciences
Article Review: Investigating Whether & When Ethnic/Race Socialization Improves
Academic Performance The Sociological Quarterly
Book Review: Cultural Anthropology by Welsch & Vivanco, McGraw-Hill
Book Review: Magic, Witchcraft & Religion by Moro & Myers, McGraw-Hill
American Indian Families: Strength and answers from our past. In B. Ingoldsby & S.
Smith (Eds.) Families in a Global and Multicultural Perspective. Sage
American Indian Families: Resilience in the face of legal, economic and cultural assault.
In K. Barrett and B. George (Eds.) Race, Culture, Psychology & Law. Chapter
with first author W. Kawamoto. Sage
A Seven Generation Approach to American Indian Families. In M. Coleman & L.
Ganong (Eds.) The Handbook of Contemporary Families: Considering the Past,
Contemplating the Future. Chapter with first author W. Kawamoto. Sage
Positive Youth Development in Urban American Indian Adolescents. In F. Villarruel, D.
Perkins, L. Borden, and J. Keith (Eds.) Community Youth Development:
Programs Polices and Practices. Chapter with second author W. Kawamoto. Sage
Cultural Transmission in urban American Indian families. In W. Kawamoto (Ed.)
Understanding American Indian Families. American Behavioral Scientist Journal
Sage
Contemporary Issues in the Urban American Indian Family. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.)
Family Ethnicity: Strength in Diversity. Chapter with first author W. Kawamoto.
Sage
American Indian Families. In M.K. DeGenova (Ed.) Families in a Cultural Context.
Chapter with first author W. Kawamoto. Mayfield
Academic Service
Academic Senate/Behavioral & Social Sciences Senator Sacramento City College 20102012
Academic Senate Sub-Committee on Student Learning Outcomes Sacramento City
College
2010
Academic Senate/Behavioral & Social Sciences Senator Sacramento City College
2009
Adjunct Faculty Union Representative Los Rios College Federation of Teachers 20092011
American Indian Week Programming/Student Service Learning/ Native Student
Welcome & Graduation Recognition Sacramento City College
20022011
Sacramento City College Online Institute Guest Co-Facilitator
Summer 2005 & 2006
x
Grant Writing (Even Start CRIHB, Foster Care Health AICRC, College Technology)
2002-2004
California Indian Conference Organizing Committee California State University,
Sacramento 2001
Sacramento City College Affirmative Action Committee
2001-2002
Folsom Lake College Consultant Online Course Evaluations
2001
Sacramento City College Curriculum & Articulation Committee
2000-2001
Distance Education Sub-Committee of the Sacramento City College Curriculum
Committee
2000-2001
Multicultural Education Sub-Committee of the Sacramento City College Curriculum
Committee 2000-2001
Professional Presentations
Conference Poster: The Impact of Student Involvement on Graduation & Transfer Rates
for Latino & American Indian Community College Students • 17th Annual Multicultural
Education Conference •California State University, Sacramento Fall 2010
Multiracial Forum Panel Participant • Florin Japanese American Citizens League
Cosumnes River College
Spring 2007 & 2008
Multiracial Forum Facilitator • Florin Japanese American Citizens League Sacramento
City College Spring 2006
Ethnic Parenting Practices Workshop • UC Davis Extension Fall 2006
Museum of History, Women and the Arts • Japanese Internment Camps Exhibit Docent
Spring 2005
NC5 Millenial Conference • Presenter on Virtual Cultures Anthropology Online April 2728, 2001
National Council on Family Relations Conference Panel Member American Indian
Families November 10-13, 2000
52nd Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference Poster Cultural Transmission on
urban American Indian
Families
April 8-10, 1999
Fields of Study
Anthropology
Family Studies
Women’s Studies
Native American Studies
Multicultural Studies
Social Sciences
Education
xi
Abstract
of
BARRIERS AND BRIDGES: AMERICAN INDIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
STUDENT RESILIENCY AND SUCCESS
by
Tamara Christine Cheshire
This mixed methods study determined self-perceived needs, barriers, and
resiliency characteristics that impact the academic success of American Indian
community college students at Sacramento City College. The study was done to provide
community colleges with further insight into the American Indian student experience to
create an avenue for sustained institutional change to positively impact student success
rates. Tribal Critical Race Theory and Reziliency Theory were combined to create a
comprehensive theoretical framework through which to understand the experiences of
American Indian students. For this study, success is defined as meeting the needs,
eliminating the barriers, and reinforcing resiliency characteristics of American Indian
students working toward the completion of a desired academic goal.
Quantitative data came from student surveys with questions focusing on needs,
barriers, and resiliency characteristics. Qualitative data came from follow-up focus
groups to obtain deeper insight into the three previously mentioned variables.
The researcher found that American Indian student needs fell into one of three
categories: family support, financial support, or college support/services. Support from
xii
family members attending college, financial support and advising, and college support in
the forms of academic counseling, cultural competency training, caring professors,
Native student recognition, outreach and programming, Native student recruitment and
retention, support for Native student organizations, involvement and networking with the
external Native community, drug and alcohol counseling, and services like RISE and
EOPS who provide advising, labs and other resources were found to be significant needs.
Internal and external barriers exist for Native students. Internal barriers are
controllable through the college and include a system linked to the perpetuation of racial
stereotypes, which specifically result in making Native students invisible on campus; an
inaccurate course curriculum or content reinforced by culturally incompetent, uncaring
professors; bureaucratic or restrictive admissions practices; bureaucratic financial aid
services; limited number and variety of course offerings; condescending tutors; the costs
and availability of books; and transportation issues. External barriers over which the
institution has no control include a lack of tribal support, lack of financial
resources/support or inadequate finances, lack of family support, too many family
demands, and how Native students feel about asking for help. It is important for the
institution to be aware of the external barriers because they impact student needs within
the internal academic environment. Interconnection between barriers prevents students
from achieving success.
Resiliency is defined as the skills or processes by which people cope with
oppressive conditions. Native students have unmet needs and have experienced barriers
xiii
rooted in racism and oppression; therefore, they have had to develop coping mechanisms
or resiliency characteristics to survive and be successful. Resiliency characteristics were
scholarship/financial support, spiritual support, social/community support, friend or
peer/mentor support, community as family or sources of motivation and support,
mentoring, friend and peer support, support services that teach resiliency characteristics
like RISE and the Native American Studies Program, caring professors and counselors, as
well as acts of resistance or survivance.
A Student Success Equation was created. Furthermore when the equation was
applied, a Student Success Model was produced incorporating factors that impact student
success. Conclusions drawn from this research provide an applied context by which
community colleges can enact transformative and transformational change to increase
American Indian student success.
xiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................vi
Curriculum Vitae ...............................................................................................................ix
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xxii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
National Data ................................................................................................... 3
California Data ................................................................................................. 6
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 9
Nature of the Study ......................................................................................... 18
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 18
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 19
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 20
Operational Definitions ................................................................................... 32
Assumptions and Limitations ......................................................................... 37
Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 38
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 38
xv
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................... 40
History............................................................................................................. 40
K-12 American Indian Students Today .......................................................... 58
Guiding Theoretical Framework ..................................................................... 62
Educational Research on College Student Success ........................................ 87
Family Involvement and Support.................................................................... 99
Community Involvement and Support ...........................................................101
Pre-college Student Experience .....................................................................102
Peer/Mentor Relationships .............................................................................103
Institutional Resources/Financial Aid ............................................................104
Counseling .....................................................................................................105
Curriculum .....................................................................................................106
Professors .......................................................................................................109
Conclusion .....................................................................................................109
3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................111
Research Questions ........................................................................................111
Research Design.............................................................................................112
Role of the Researcher ...................................................................................113
Setting ............................................................................................................114
Sample............................................................................................................123
Instrumentation and Materials .......................................................................129
xvi
Data Collection ..............................................................................................145
Protecting Participant Rights .........................................................................149
Conclusion .....................................................................................................151
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ......................................................................................152
Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................153
Significant Correlations .................................................................................154
Quantitative Analysis Summary ....................................................................190
Qualitative Data Analysis ..............................................................................194
Qualitative Summary .....................................................................................221
Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative Results ........................................224
5. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................226
Theoretical Framework Issue .........................................................................227
Findings..........................................................................................................229
Meeting Students Needs ................................................................................230
Barriers ...........................................................................................................244
Resiliency Characteristics ..............................................................................287
Practical Application ......................................................................................293
Overall Recommendations for Leadership ....................................................309
Overall Recommendations for Policy ............................................................310
Overall Recommendations for Practice .........................................................310
Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................313
xvii
Limitations .....................................................................................................314
Conclusion .....................................................................................................314
6. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................318
Appendix A. Survey of Student Success .......................................................319
Appendix B. Focus Group Questions ............................................................332
Appendix C. Consent Forms ..........................................................................334
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................338
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Comparison of Indian Fall Enrollment, 1990 and 1996 ............................................ 50
2.
Programs at Sacramento City College......................................................................117
3.
Native American-only Student Population End-of-Semester Enrollment
(PRIE Office at SCC) ...............................................................................................119
4.
Degree in Declared Major ........................................................................................120
5.
Fall to Spring and Fall to Fall Persistence Rates of Native-only Students...............122
6.
Race or Ethnicity of Participants ..............................................................................124
7.
Tribal Affiliation ......................................................................................................125
8.
Participants’ Educational Goals ...............................................................................126
9.
Number of Children and Marital Status of Participants ...........................................127
10. Codes for Analyzing Focus Groups .........................................................................139
11. Independent Quantitative Variables Impacting Native Student Success .................154
12. Significant Correlations Among Variables Related to Student Needs .....................156
13. Annual Yearly Income Frequency Data ...................................................................157
14. Correlation Public Assistance/Grants & Scholarships Sources of Major
Support to Pay Tuition .............................................................................................158
15. Correlation of Students Who Rely on Public Assistance/Students Who
Used EOPS and RISE...............................................................................................160
xix
16. Correlation Students Who Rely on Public Assistance/Importance of
EOPS & RISE ..........................................................................................................161
17. Correlation Importance of EOPS and RISE/ Use of Peer and Other Tutoring ........161
18. Correlation Importance of RISE/Tutor Availability Important to
Academic success .....................................................................................................162
19. Correlation Importance of EOPS and RISE/Importance Skill Labs ........................163
20. Correlation Importance of EOPS and RISE/Satisfaction Skill Labs ........................163
21. Correlation Satisfaction EOPS/Satisfaction Academic Advising ............................164
22. Correlation Importance of RISE/Importance of Academic Advising ......................165
23. Correlation Importance of EOPS/Satisfaction with Financial Aid Advising ...........165
24. Significant Correlations among Variables Related to Barriers ................................167
25. Correlations of Socioeconomic Disadvantage with Other Factors ..........................168
26. Correlation Socioeconomic Disadvantage/Too Many Family Demands .................170
27. Correlation Socioeconomic Disadvantage Seen as a Major Barrier ........................170
28. Correlation Inadequate Financial Resources/Withdraw Lack of Finances ..............172
29. Correlation Inadequate Financial Resources/Withdraw Bureaucratic
Financial Aid ............................................................................................................172
30. Correlation Inadequate Financial Resources/Withdraw Limited Courses ...............173
31. Correlations Withdraw due to Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services
with Other Factors ....................................................................................................174
xx
32. Correlation Withdraw Bureaucratic Financial Aid/Socioeconomic
Disadvantage ............................................................................................................176
33. Negative Correlations Withdraw Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services
with Other Factors ....................................................................................................177
34. Correlations Withdraw due to Restrictive Admissions Practices with
Other Factors ............................................................................................................179
35. Correlation Inadequate Coping Skills as Barrier/Withdraw due to
Limited Courses .......................................................................................................181
36. Correlation Inadequate Coping Skills as Barrier/Withdraw due to
Transportation Issues ................................................................................................182
37. Correlation Withdraw due to Transportation Issues /Withdraw
Limited Number of Courses .....................................................................................183
38. Significant Correlations among Variables Related to Resiliency
Characteristics ..........................................................................................................184
39. Correlations between Resiliency Factors .................................................................185
40. Correlations Spiritual Support Resiliency with Other Financial Factors .................187
41. Correlations Scholarship Financial Support Resiliency with Other Factors ............188
42. Qualitative Needs, Barriers and Resiliency Characteristics Chart ...........................196
xxi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Page
Percentage Distribution American Indian and Alaska Native Population by
State: 2010 .................................................................................................................. 7
2.
Ten Places with the Largest Number of American Indians and
Alaska Natives: 2010.................................................................................................. 8
3.
Ten Places with the Highest Percentage of American Indians and Alaska
Native: 2010 ............................................................................................................... 9
4.
American Indian and White Unemployment Rates, 2007-2010 ............................... 14
5.
Core Components Brayboy's (2006) Tribal Critical Race Theory ............................ 24
6.
Brayboy’s (2006) Tribal Critical Race Theory ......................................................... 68
7.
Tribal Critical Race Theory Further Detailed (Brayboy, 2006) ................................ 69
8.
A model of community cultural wealth ..................................................................... 79
9.
Theoretical Framework Visual .................................................................................. 83
10. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model ..................................239
11. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model to Invisibility ...........257
12. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model to Barrier
Biased System ..........................................................................................................259
13. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model to Barrier
Deficit Model ...........................................................................................................261
xxii
14. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model to
Academic Advising ..................................................................................................277
15. Reziliency Model Relating to Needs and Barriers ...................................................292
16. Working Student Success Model .............................................................................293
17. Native Student Success Consortium.........................................................................308
18. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model ..................................312
xxiii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
It is this spirit of hope, determination, bravery, courage, and ferocious love that
creates resilient people and resilient recovery from loss and trauma. It is this spirit
that will help American Indian people today and tomorrow. (Belcourt-Dittloff,
2006, p. 107)
Native Americans1, whose voices have been widely ignored as involuntary minorities
(Ogbu & Simmons, 1998), have faced unmet educational needs and have experienced
substandard educational conditions (Young, 2010). Oppression and discrimination have
led to an educational deficit spanning generations, resulting in institutionalized barriers,
disadvantages, and the limited success of Native American students (Young, 2010).
American Indian community college students are some of the most underrepresented and
underserved groups in higher education (Huffman & Ferguson, 2007; Starks, 2010;
Thomason & Thurber, 1999; Tierney, 1992). The purpose of this study was to determine
the self-perceived needs, barriers, and resiliency characteristics impacting the academic
success of American Indian community college students at Sacramento City College.
This study provides further insight into the American Indian community college student
experience.
1
For the purpose of this study, the terms American Indian, Native people, Native
American, Native, Indigenous, and Indian are used interchangeably and refer to a person
having origins in any of the original homeland locations now located within the United
States proper or a person who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation,
enrollment, or community recognition (Stoney Brook, 2011).
2
The legacy of American Indians in the United States is one of extreme
dichotomous stereotypes or invisibility. Not only have historians condemned Native
people to a death somewhere in the past, but the true stories, the voices of Indigenous
people from the past to the present, are absent. American Indians in the United States
remain invisible because of their small population size and the ingrained racist
stereotypes that have tainted their image and have impacted the identities of Indigenous
people through time (Loo & Rolison, 1986; Milem, 2000). Native people continue to
face overt and covert oppression in their daily lives to the point where their invisibility
can be utilized as a somewhat useful tool to avoid the actual physical danger of overt
racism (Sherover-Marcuse, n.d.). But this invisibility has had negative consequences.
Indigenous children remain invisible in elementary, junior high, and high schools and this
follows them into the community college and beyond into higher levels of postsecondary
education (Cole & Denzine, 2002; Young, 2010). Because Native students make up a
small population, they remain demographically invisible to educational institutions,
which correlates with Native student needs not being met and has a direct negative
impact on student success rates (Cole & Denzine, 2002; Starks, 2010). When data driven
decisions are significant to changes in policy, and there is little to no data collected or
reported on American Indians, then positive change cannot take place and Native
students remain underserved.
3
National Data
According to the 2010 U.S. Census Brief Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin
(Hume, Jones, & Ramirez, 2010), there are approximately 5.2 million self-identified
American Indians and Alaska Natives (either claiming one ethnic group alone or in
combination with other ethnic groups), which equates to 1.7% of the total U.S.
population of approximately 310 million people. Of the total 5.2 million, 2.9 million
were American Indian and Alaska Native only (meaning they claimed no other racial or
ethnic group in conjunction with their Native identity), while 2.3 million were American
Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races (Hume et al.,
2010). According to Hume et al.’s Census Brief, between the 2000 Census and the 2010
Census there was a population increase of 1.1 million American Indian and Alaska
Natives alone and in combination with one or more races, or a 26.7% increase compared
to the overall population growth of 9.7%. In 2010, Starks found American Indians were
underrepresented in terms of representation as per their population size in two- and fouryear public and private institutions of higher education nationwide. Data reveal that in
2009, Natives comprised approximately 1.1% or 181,100 of the 18 million students
enrolled in higher education in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 2009). Also in 2009, only 7.5% of all American Indian College students were
enrolled at tribal colleges while American Indians made up 0.9% of four-year college
students (NCES, 2009).
4
Researchers for over 10 years, between 1995 and 2008, documented that more
than half the American Indian students attending college (55%) were enrolled at the
community college level (American Association of Community College, 2008; Babco,
2005; Carney, 1999; Dodd, Garcia, Meccage, & Nelson, 1995; Oosahwe, 2008). But
according to Carney (1999), Native Americans are often regrouped with other minority
groups in research because their numbers are too small to be statistically significant. As a
consequence, few studies have been done on American Indians in higher education,
specifically at the community college level.
Within the last few years, Moran, Rampey, Dion, and Donahue (2008) reported
the dropout rate of Native American students in the K-12 system to be 33%, twice the
national average and the highest rate of any ethnic group in the United States at that time.
Furthermore, Moran et al. (2008) found some Native students dropped out of school
because their needs were not being met. In 2007, the American Indian College Fund
found that 28% of American Indians did not graduate from high school compared to the
national average of 15%. This statistic definitely impacts the number of American Indian
students eligible for enrollment at the college level. The American Indian College Fund
(2007) also found that in 2007, only 42% of American Indian eligible students pursued
any higher education compared to the national average of 53%.
On a more comprehensive note, the 2008 U.S. Census Bureau publication, the
American Community Survey, revealed that 20-25% of the American Indians aged 25
years and older had less than a high school education, approximately 30% had obtained a
5
high school diploma, between 30-35% had an Associates Degree, and only 14% had
obtained a Bachelor’s degree or higher (NCES, 2008). More recent data from the 2011
U.S. Census Bureau News Profile, American Facts for Features reveals that the
percentage of Natives obtaining a Bachelor’s degree or higher had decreased to 13%.
In reviewing research studies more than several years old, a complete picture can
be seen. Jackson, Smith, and Hill (2003) found that 54% of Native students in four-year
colleges and universities exited after their first year compared to 32% of the general
population. In 2002, Cole and Denzine stated, “American Indian students typically have
the lowest [college] retention and graduation rates of any ethnic minority group in the
country” (p. 2). With high dropout or stopout rates in conjunction with low retention and
graduation rates, Indigenous student success is threatened.
Looking back 20-30 years, a study by Ponterotto (1990) revealed that the number
of Native students who obtained undergraduate degrees was disproportionate to the
representation of their population in the U.S., a trend that still continues (Starks, 2010).
However, Hoover and Jacobs (1992) found more startling data, “seventy-five percent of
the [American Indian] students who began college unfortunately left prior to graduation”
(p. 1). Reyhner (1992) documented that some Native students were being pushed out of
education because they protested how they were being treated. In addition, Native
students usually attended more than one college in their efforts to earn a degree and have
one or more stop outs during this timeframe (Red Leaf, 1999; Tierney, 1992). Villegas
(1988), who documented Native students dropping out of school in the late 1980s,
6
claimed the actual act of dropping out of school was an act of resistance to the oppressive
conditions of the dominant culture. Contemporary scholars such as Young (2010) argue
that this behavior was counterproductive in that it continued the cycle of oppression,
further disempowering this minority group because of the lack of educated adults with
economic stability to make greater socioeconomic change. As early as the 1980s, Astin
(1982) estimated that six out of every 100 American Indian students in college would
graduate and only two of the six would obtain a postgraduate degree. These were dismal
numbers indeed.
Because the trend continues that over half of all Native students are enrolled at
community colleges (American Association of Community College, 2008; Carney, 1999;
Dodd, Garcia, Meccage, & Nelson, 1995; Oosahwe, 2008), it is important to obtain
information about this demographic in order to meet their needs and address barriers to
their success.
California Data
California has the largest number of Natives in the United States with
approximately 723,000 American Indians who primarily live in urban areas (Hume et al.,
2010).
7
Figure 1. Percentage Distribution American Indian and Alaska Native Population by
State: 2010
Even though Los Angeles County continues to have the largest concentration of
American Indian residents based on the Census 2010 Redistricting Data Summary File
(California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, State Census Data
Center [CDF], 2011), the majority of American Indians who live in northern California
(42,917) populate Fresno, Sacramento, and Santa Clara counties (CDF, 2011).
8
Figure 2. Ten Places with the Largest Number of American Indians and Alaska Natives:
2010
Being that a large number of Native Americans (14,308) populate Sacramento
County (CDF, 2011), it is fitting that this study’s focus is on American Indian community
college students at Sacramento City College.
9
Figure 3. Ten Places with the Highest Percentage of American Indians and Alaska
Native: 2010
Statement of the Problem
Too few American Indian community college students achieve academic success.
Even though student success has been defined in a variety of ways, incorporating
many different factors from grade point average to degree obtainment, for the purpose of
this study, student success is defined as meeting the needs, eliminating the barriers, and
reinforcing the resiliency characteristics of students working toward the completion of a
desired academic goal.
Over the past 12 years, a broad range of studies has been done on American
Indians in higher education. Some of these studies have focused on models for Native
student success specifically utilizing grade point average (GPA) as a guiding factor
10
(Smith Bontempi, 2006), or the focus was on student success in conjunction with gender
(Bitsoi, 2007) as well as success in specific areas like writing (Komlos, 2011).
Oosahwe’s (2008) focus was on motivation, coping skills, and strategies for academic
success. Other studies on Native students in higher education have concentrated on
student involvement (Garland, 2010); recruitment (Starks, 2010); attrition, persistence, or
retention (Beaulieu, 2000; Chee, 2008; Cole & Denzine, 2002; Drummer, 2009; Garland,
2010; Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 2001; Guillory, 2002; Kelly, 2008; Powless, 2008;
Starks, 2010; Young, 2010; White, 2007); the importance of maintaining a Native
identity while obtaining an education (Capurso, 2008; Lomay, 2004); motivation
(Guillory, 2008); satisfaction (Huffman & Ferguson, 2007); and resiliency (BelcourtDittloff, 2006; Montgomery, Miville, Winterowd, Jeffries, & Baysden, 2000).
Recent studies done on tribal colleges have centered on educational attainment
(Reese, 2011); the connection between tribal college mission statements and the
curriculum offered, as well as the greater relationship to issues of tribal sovereignty
(Riding, 2010); and the complete history of tribal colleges (Raymond, 2004); as well as
the link between family support and attending tribal college (Rousey & Longie, 2001).
Many studies give great praise to tribal colleges for their high success rates (Raymond,
2004; Rousey & Longie, 2001), but in recent studies (Reese, 2011; Riding, 2010), and in
a specific study by White (2007) persistence and graduation rates of Tribal colleges
compared to community colleges found this broad claim of student success at Tribal
colleges unsupported by the data.
11
Even though a great number of studies have been reviewed for this dissertation,
literature on Native students at the community college level is sparse. Much of the
literature that exists is either dated (Viri, 1989), focuses on many ethnic minority groups,
or takes place at tribal colleges or at four-year colleges and universities. The number of
studies completed within the last 10 years focusing specifically on American Indian
community college students (Baxter, 2009), their success, barriers, and persistence is
minimal.
Academic Attainment and Persistence
According to Garland (2010), Starks (2010), The National Center for Education
Statistics (2009), and Cole and Denzine (2002), Native American students have been and
continue to be the least successful ethnic group in academic attainment and persistence.
Older research by Benjamin, Chambers, and Reiterman (1993), Cummins (1992), and
Tierney (1992) allowed this researcher to historically link the finding that American
Indian students disproportionately experienced failure in mainstream higher education
systems. Statistics in the early 1990s and again in the early 2000s revealed a trend that
while up to 64% of American Indian students enroll in college, evidence shows they have
had some of the highest dropout rates with up to 75% of the students enrolled leaving
during their first year (Hoover & Jacobs, 1992; Saggio, 2004). In addition, Native
students persistently have had some of the lowest graduation rates of any ethnic minority
group in the U.S. (Cole & Denzine, 2002; Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 2001; Kidwell,
1994; O’Brien, 1990; Reddy, 1993). Contemporary and historical oppression have had a
12
tremendous impact on American Indians, their academic achievement, poverty rates,
income, and unemployment, as well as health and death rates.
Poverty
According to Belcourt-Dittloff (2006), poverty itself as one outcome of
oppression has had a harsh effect on Natives. In 2010, 28.4% of American Indians and
Alaska Natives (percentage is alone, not in conjunction with any other racial group) were
living in poverty compared to the nation as a whole with the corresponding rate of 15.3%
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
Income
The median income of American Indian and Alaska Native (alone, not in
conjunction with any other racial group) households in 2010 was $35,062 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012). This compares with $50,046 for the nation as a whole (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012). The Federal government recently defined the poverty line for a family of
four as $22,314 (Censky, 2011).
Connections must be made between these high rates of poverty and historic
socioeconomic oppression experienced by Indigenous communities because of lack of
higher education. Belcourt-Dittloff (2006) discussed the impact of long-term risk factors
like poverty and how families are at an increased threat of “exposure to stressors
and…contemporary traumatic life experiences” (p. 7).
Education is the key to obtaining higher paying jobs and moving out of poverty
(Jez, 2008; Nevarez & Wood, 2010; Thompson & Carter, 1997). According to Shotton
13
(2008), the lifetime earnings for those with a higher education are significantly higher
than that of a person with a high school diploma. Mortenson (2000) documented lifetime
earnings for men with a bachelor’s degree to be $1.163 million higher than for men with
just a high school diploma. Women college graduates were $602,680 higher than for
their counterparts with only a high school diploma. In her article, Perna (2003) cites a
studying showing that earnings for women with a college degree were 92% higher than
those with a high school diploma, whereas men in the same situation had 58% higher
incomes (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002, p. 137). According to Crosby
(2001), 1998 statistics for median earnings of full-time workers increased by education
level with bachelor degree holders earning 61% more, master’s degree holders earning
95% more and doctorate degree holders earning 142% more than those with just a high
school diploma. Shotton (2008) clearly pointed out that higher education is essential for
American Indians to move out of poverty.
Unemployment
Unemployment levels for Natives have been recorded as some of the highest of
any ethnic group in the United States, especially on reservations (Arrieta, 2011; BelcourtDittloff, 2006; Brod & McQuiston, 1983; Census, 2008). In the first half of the year
2007, the unemployment rate for Native people was approximately 7.7% (Arrieta, 2011).
In the first half of 2010, the unemployment rate for Natives was an appalling 15.2%
compared to 9.1% unemployment for Whites (Arrieta, 2011). The U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (2003) documented excessively high unemployment rates ranging between
14
30% and 80% both on and off the reservation in the year 2003 and prior, which is a direct
outcome of historic trauma, leading to pervasive poverty for Natives (U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights, 2003).
Figure 4. American Indian and White Unemployment Rates, 2007-2010
(Austin, 2010)
Health & Death Rates
From the 1940s until 2006, the health status of Natives has improved but they still
maintained a higher risk of death than the total U.S. population (Anderson, Belcourt, &
Langwell, 2005; Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006; Young, 1997). According to Belcourt-Dittloff
(2006), death rates were considerably higher for American Indians when comparing them
15
to other ethnic groups. From 1996-1998, suicide rates for American Indians were 91%
greater. American Indian males between ages 14 and 17 had suicide rates four times the
national average. Homicide rates were 81% greater and death rates associated with
alcohol were 638% greater than other ethnic groups (Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Services, 2004).
The most vulnerable amongst Natives are the elders, women, and children. Rates
of death due to heart disease, diabetes, pneumonia, influenza, firearms, and accidental
injuries besides other diseases were all higher for American Indians than for any other
ethnic group (Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Indian Health Services, 2004) and there is no evidence that these rates have changed.
Infant mortality rates remained 24% greater for Natives than for other groups in 2006
(Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006).
Historic Trauma
American Indian history is permeated with themes of “contact, conflict,
oppression, attempted genocide, cultural erosion, and the resultant aftermath” (BelcourtDittloff, 2006, p. 5). The experiences of American Indians through historic trauma,
sustained intergenerational loss and ever-present bereavement equate to what holocaust
victims have endured (Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006; LaCapra, 1994, 2001) and are worthy of
study. In fact, historical factors continue to influence the development of American
Indian individuals and communities in contemporary times. Historic trauma of genocidal
practices including “massacres, forced relocations, forced removal of American Indian
16
children to boarding schools” (Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006, p. 4), forced sterilization of
American Indian women, and overt and covert institutional racism are factors that relate
to risk and resiliency (Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998). The outcomes of these factors
continue to impact American Indian individuals and communities today (Garland, 2010;
Komlos, 2011; Starks, 2010). However, the fact that Native people still exist and
continue to endure historic and contemporary forms of oppression is testament enough to
study the strengths exhibited by them (Allen, 2002).
Early Educational Experience
This study also takes into consideration Native American youth and their early
experiences with education and how they impact their current view at the community
college level. The preschool through 12th grade experience of Native children is fraught
with low teacher expectations, imposed racist stereotypes from educators and peers, and
pro-assimilation views by teachers and administrators culminating in low student
performance and atrociously low success rates (Banks et al., 2005; Moran et al., 2008;
Swisher & Tippeconnic, 1999; Young, 2010). In 2010, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that fourth-grade Native students scored below
basic levels in math, reading, and history (Young, 2010). In 2008, Moran et al. reported
Native children scored lower than their White and Asian counterparts but statistically
were similar in their low scores to Black and Hispanic peers. It was made clear by a
study by Banks et al. in 2005 that test scores alone indicated schools were not meeting
17
the needs of American Indian students and that students who were not successful in their
educational endeavors joined a growing underclass (Banks et al., 2005).
Despite efforts made to improve education for American Indian students, they
“continue to be negatively affected by poverty and low educational attainment”
(Beaulieu, 2000, p. 6). In addition, Native students continue to have fewer educational
opportunities than other students (Beaulieu, 2000; Young, 2010). Although Beaulieu
(2000) found the dropout rates for Native students in 2000 and earlier were high, Natives
were often unprepared when they began school, they achieved success at lower rates, and
few Indian students entered and finished college 10 years later. Young (2010) found
similar results in that Native students were unprepared, achieved success at lower rates
and few students entered or finished college. Because Native students are performing
below basic skill levels, they are not eligible for college preparation courses and do not
benefit from the skills taught in these courses to be successful in higher education, if they
succeed in graduating from high school.
Previous research is limited and problematic in that educational data is scarce for
American Indians due to small study sample size, generalizability issues, and reliability
concerns (Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 2001; Kidwell, 1994; Pavel, Skinner, Cahalan,
Tippeconnic, & Stein, 1998). The little research that exists documents high attrition rates
of American Indian college students and ambiguity about the factors or barriers
impacting students’ decisions to attend college and persist with their educational goals
(Beaulieu, 2000; Young, 2010). This uncertainty originates from the absence of research
18
on the experiences of Native students within higher education (Falk and Aitken, 1984;
Tijerina & Biemer, 1988; Wright, 1985); insufficient representation of American Indians
in national research databases (Benjamin et al., 1993; Pavel & Padilla, 1993); and a
dearth of studies that take into consideration tribal and cultural experiences and traditions
as possible resources related to persistence (Belgarde, 1992; Benjamin et al., 1993;
Murguia, Padilla, & Pavel, 1991; Pavel & Padilla, 1993).
Nature of the Study
This study will provide policymakers with data to revise and/or create policy
enhancing Native student success. Data collected during this study will contribute to the
existing body of research and will be formulated into an equation that can be readily used
by administrators, student services, counselors, and faculty at the community college
level to assist American Indian students in achieving success. The equation may also be
utilized by Native students to enhance their own success rates.
Research Questions
This study explored the experiences of American Indian community college
students enrolled at Sacramento City College and focused on student success through
obtaining information via survey and focus groups. Using three core theories: Tribal
19
Critical Race Theory, Community Cultural Wealth, and Reziliency2 Theory as
frameworks impacting the Indigenous experience in and perception of higher education.
Students’ experiences were cataloged as responsive to the following research questions:

What are the academic and personal needs of American Indian community
college students?

What are the perceived barriers American Indian students face at the
community college level?

What are the resiliency and other characteristics employed by American
Indian community college students that contribute to student success?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the self-perceived needs, barriers, and
resiliency characteristics impacting the academic success of American Indian community
college students at Sacramento City College. This study provides further insight into the
American Indian community college student experience.
This study identifies needs and resilient forces in student lives, and gathers
student views about barriers experienced in their attempts to obtain academic success.
Resiliency strategies and barriers experienced by students serve as factors representing
the extreme ends of a host of factors impacting student success. By using resiliency and
2
Reziliency and Resiliency are interchangeably defined as positive ways in which students have
adapted to their learning or educational environment and factors, skills, and processes used to
cope with oppressive conditions.
20
barriers and including other factors like needs, this study assists in determining factors
inhibiting as well as contributing to the success of Native community college students.
Needs may include family involvement and support, community involvement and
support, pre-college academic preparation or high school experience, financial support,
faculty support, coursework and institutional commitment and support,.
Previous studies of American Indian students who attended mainstream
universities and colleges suggest factors such as precollege academic preparation, family
support, supportive and involved faculty, institutional commitment, and maintaining an
active presence in home communities and cultural ceremonies are essential to persistence
(Astin, 1982; Barnhardt, 1994; Brown, 1995; Falk & Aitken, 1984; Huffman, Sill, &
Brokenleg, 1986; Lin, 1990; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995; Starks, 2010). In an early study by
Aiken and Falk (1984), it was found that retention related to “parental and community
involvement, financial support, academic preparation in high school, campus support for
Indian students and lastly, value[s]” (p. 1). While Cole and Denzine (2002) and Huffman
(2001) implied cultural conflicts were of the primary issues creating barriers to Native
student success. Belcourt-Dittloff (2006) indicated protective factors against risk
included community, family, creativity, humor, and spiritual beliefs.
Theoretical Framework
Multiple theories were used to create a framework in which to collect and analyze
the data. Tribal Critical Race Theory and Community Cultural Wealth and Reziliency
21
Theory, with an explanation as to how these frameworks impact the Indigenous
experience in and perception of higher education is discussed. Within this section is a
brief overview of each theory. Chapter 2 provides the reader with more theoretical
details in addition to a review of the literature.
Tribal Critical Race Theory
Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCRT) (Brayboy, 2006) addresses the continued
impact of colonization on American Indians (Brayboy, 2006). Brayboy (2006) explained
how colonization equates to European American thought, knowledge, and power
structures present in modern day U.S. society, government, politics, law, and education.
He further added that he created Tribal Critical Race Theory as a way to convince
scholars of the validity of an Indigenous world-view through stories, which incorporate
individual experience and responsibility for community survival (Brayboy, 2006).
Brayboy (2006) focuses on the importance of different types of knowledge within
TribalCRT Theory. He defined knowledge as “the ability to recognize change, adapt, and
move forward” (Brayboy, 2006, p. 434). He further identified three types of coexisting
knowledge: cultural knowledge, the knowledge of survival, and academic knowledge
(Brayboy, 2006). All three are important to survival.
Cultural knowledge is everything a person knows as a member of a particular
cultural group, specifically what individuals know as members of tribal nations (Brayboy,
2006). Community knowledge is important in understanding cultural knowledge.
Cultural traditions and “ways of being and knowing that make an individual a member of
22
a community” (Brayboy, 2006, p. 434) fall into this category. Cultural knowledge is
applied later in a comprehensive theoretical framework.
Knowledge of survival incorporates adaptation strategies that have been learned
as well as the personal choice made with the community to change and adapt in order to
survive. Knowledge of survival promotes resiliency and is applied later in a
comprehensive theoretical framework.
Academic knowledge comes from institutes of education. Also known as “book
learning,” academic knowledge is seen by academics as being more valid than
Indigenous ways of knowing, but Brayboy (2006) and others (Barnhardt & Kawagley,
2005; Battiste, 2002; Harrison & Papa, 2005; Kawagley, 1995; Medicine, 2001)
explained this does not have to be the case. Educators can and should recognize the
validity of cultural knowledge and how it contributes to building academic knowledge.
According to Brayboy (2006), cultural and academic knowledge blend and balance each
other. In fact, the key to survival can be found by combining academic and cultural
knowledge (Brayboy, 2006; Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2004, 2005; Deloria, 1970;
Medicine, 2001). Brayboy (2006) used an example of Indigenous people combining
academic knowledge with cultural knowledge to work toward social justice in tribal
communities.
By strategically combining multiple forms of knowledge, power can be created
and used for change. Brayboy (2006) explained, “power is rooted in a group’s ability to
define themselves, their place in the world, and their traditions” (p. 435). Power is
23
essentially redefined as sovereignty. Tribal sovereignty is inherent and based in the
community (Brayboy, 2006); therefore, power is shared as an expression of rights to selfidentify, self-govern, and self-educate to meet the needs of the people. Vizenor (1998)
and Vizenor and Lee (1999) add another component, perseverance. Because Indigenous
people have persevered in extremely antagonistic conditions including forced
assimilation strategies and outright acts of genocide, survivance (a term coined by
Deloria [1969], which combines survival and resistance) is used to explain the adaptive
processes of the Indigenous community.
According to Brayboy (2006), “culture is the base for knowledge that ultimately
leads to power” (p. 436). Brayboy (2006) also explained the reciprocal nature between
knowledge and power. Culture acts as a stabilizing force that provides individuals who
are part of the larger community with identity. The dynamic nature of culture is its
ability to change. Knowledge is essential for culture to survive because through
knowledge, information about the culture, cultural boundaries, and ways in which the
culture has and can adapt or change are passed down to successive generations. How
cultural groups define and identify themselves is a source of power because this too can
change due to it being socially constructed (Brayboy, 2006). This base model
representing Brayboy’s (2006) TribalCRT is used within the larger theoretical
framework.
24
Figure 5. Core Components Brayboy's (2006) Tribal Critical Race Theory
Tribal Critical Race Theory (Brayboy, 2006) has its roots in Critical Race Theory
(CRT), which focuses on education and addresses the fact that racism is widespread,
enduring, and embedded in institutions (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Russell, 1992;
Solórzano, 1997, 1998; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Solórzano & Yosso, 2000,
2001, 2005). Critical Race Theorists claim educational institutions are not objective,
racially neutral, based on merit, and do not provide equal opportunity (Crenshaw, 1989,
1993; Delgado Bernal, 2002; Delgado & Stefancic, 2000; Ramirez, 2011; Solórzano &
Yosso, 2001, 2002; Villalpando, 2003). Even though systems of education claim to be
fair and unbiased, underrepresented students continue to be marginalized and oppressed
as evidenced by the achievement gap (Nevarez & Wood, 2011) and as revealed in
25
inconsistent policy and practice (Yosso, 2005). CRT scholars expose traditional claims
of equity and objectivity in education as fabricated to maintain power and privilege for
the dominant group (Calmore, 1992; Solórzano, 1997; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).
Contemporary education policies and practices limit opportunities for minority students.
TribalCRT and CRT provide a social justice lens that addresses this issue and reinforces
liberation ideology (Friere, 1970, 1973; hooks, 1994). CRT promotes an applied
approach of theory to practice or praxis in order to work toward eliminating racism,
sexism, and classism in education through a social justice research agenda to empower
underrepresented students (Brayboy, 2006; Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Friere,
1970, 1973; Parker, 1998; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001,
2002; Williams, 1997).
TribalCRT will be used to explore the internal and external barriers and support
networks as well as evaluate and challenge institutional assumptions, practices and
policies that may hinder American Indian community college student success at
Sacramento City College. By applying TribalCRT to higher education, assessments can
be done on educational procedures, programs, and policies to address barriers to
American Indian student educational success.
TribalCRT challenges the Cultural Deficit model and takes into account the
power and privilege held by White founded systems of education and the structural
inequities that persist to assimilate Native students. This framework is applied to analyze
and interpret experiences of American Indian students enrolled at Sacramento City
26
College to determine the barriers preventing Native students from achieving academic
success. A review of institutional policy and practices will take place to determine how
they reinforce success or contribute to barriers that discourage achievement.
Community Cultural Wealth
Yosso’s (2005) Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) focuses on the importance of
unrecognized assets (Ramirez, 2011) within communities of color. Cultural Wealth is
accumulated through identifying and utilizing several types of capital, including cultural,
social, familial, navigational, linguistic, and resistant capital (Auerbach, 2001; Delgado
Bernal, 1997, 2001; Faulstich Orellana, 2003; Ramirez, 2011; Solórzano & Delgado
Bernal; 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Yosso, 2005). These resources are then utilized or
transacted within the community in which the individual is a part.
In direct opposition to Community Cultural Wealth is the Cultural Deficit Model,
associated with Cultural Capital Theory and the Funds of Knowledge Theory.
Bourdieu’s (1977b) theory of Cultural Capital refers to the skills, knowledge, and
resources students bring with them to college in order to understand the institutional
system of which they become a part. These resources are considered cultural capital. If a
student does not have these resources, they are perceived to be at a disadvantage from the
larger institution (Bourdieu, 1977a; Bourdieu, 1977b; Throsby, 1999; Tinto, 1975). The
education system requires students to acquire certain skills to operate within this
environment and become successful. According to Bourdieu (1977b), Throsby (1999),
and Tinto (1975), some students enrolled in college are at a disadvantage because they do
27
not possess the skills or the college cultural capital to operate within the institution. The
end result is a labeling of the student as “deficient,” which carries with it negative
connotations that could lead one to believe and reinforce stereotypes specifically about
minority students being deficient or not capable of obtaining a higher education at all,
thereby allowing college faculty, staff, and administrators to be lax in their efforts to
teach, reach, retain, and graduate or transfer said students.
Educational institutions subscribe to the Cultural Deficit Model by adopting what
Freire (2009) terms the banking method, which in turn is used to infuse students who are
empty receptacles, having no valid cultural resources from their communities or skills of
their own, with academic and cultural knowledge judged to be essential by mainstream
society (Yosso, 2006). Note it is presumed by educators that students do not come into
the education system with previous valuable cultural knowledge. Instead, they must learn
what is valuable through their teachers and pre-writ curriculum. Educators presume they
work in educational institutions that are fair, equitable, and effective systems and what
needs to change are the students, parents, families, and communities (Yosso, 2005). This
is an inaccurate perception clouded by stereotypes, power, and privilege.
One of the core barriers to academic success (DeJong, 1993) has been
assimilation strategies or perceived assimilation strategies reinforced through policy and
curriculum in education. The focus in education has been on changing the student, not
the system of education (Starks, 2010). This is problematic because the systemic
inequities experienced by American Indian and other minority students are external
28
factors not internal faults of the student. By making the assumption that the student is
faulty, researchers, practitioners, and educators are utilizing the deficit model. Yosso
(2005) rejects the deficit model and states that students come to educational institutions
with cultural resources, and these should be seen as assets.
The Funds of Knowledge Theory by Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992) is
also based on a deficit perspective placing the educational institution as the knowledge
center whereby students must abandon what they previously knew or their Community
Wealth to learn the “correct” information. The Funds of Knowledge Theory by Moll et
al. (1992) explains that the activities and information provided to a student can add to the
student’s fund of college knowledge. However, a lack of this information can provide a
gap from which the knowledge must be attained elsewhere, most likely through the
educational institution (Andrews & Yee, 2006; Ares & Buendia, 2007; Rubenstein-Arila,
2006; Velez-Ibanez & Greenberg, 1992) in order for the student to succeed. Included in
these funds are cultural capital and social capital, which can have a significant impact on
students’ educational experiences and achievement. This can also be applied to the
cultural beliefs and values passed down through a family. As the culture of higher
education may differ from students’ home cultures, students must find some way to
adapt. Students’ home lives have a significant impact on their educational experiences,
goals, and achievements, but according to the Funds of Knowledge Theory (Moll et al.,
1992), this may be viewed as a deficit. This theory is important because the gaps in
information may be seen as barriers but, according to Yosso (2005), a student’s home
29
life, which is associated with cultural and familial capital, could never be considered a
deficit, and the fact that it may be seen as a deficit by educators is actually the root
problem.
A flaw in Bourdieu’s (1977b) Capital Theory and in Mollet al.’s (1992) Funds of
Knowledge Theory is that skills can be learned in an environment that reinforces the
validity of the capital the student brings with them to college. It may actually be easier to
use the student’s strengths and community resources to facilitate learning new skills.
Resources within the college environment, including financial aid, are highly regulated
and serve as a stopgap mechanism or barrier for minority students. This is due to a
collection of factors, stemming heavily from a lack of trust between the college
administration and minority students. Students are often perceived as taking advantage
of the educational system for purposes other than to obtain an education. This is
compounded both by the perception that academic institutions house the ‘correct’
knowledge and by the administration’s paternal idealism, which results in the treatment
of students as if they were incapable of making important decisions for themselves.
There is current discussion in higher education to weed out the undesirable students
negatively impacting college success statistics.
Critical Race Theory when applied to social and cultural capital theory holds that
power and privilege should be considered in terms of the type of cultural and social
capital obtained. Some students have access to power directly and are privileged in that
they have been given the cultural and social capital they need to succeed on a college
30
campus. For those students who do not have access to power or privilege, barriers can
result. The student is then faced with the three choices: they can completely abandon
their ethnic identity and assimilate entirely, drop out of college and retain their ethnic
identity in its entirety, or try to maintain some ethnic identity while still assimilating to
the college experience. The students who choose this last route take a huge risk, trading
some loss of identity and social/cultural capital in hopes they will gain new capital within
a system with which they are unfamiliar. Students come to college with cultural and
social capital originating from their family and community. They bring this to bear at the
community college level where they attempt to apply it. Because the community college
is based on dominant cultural and social values, the capital the student has obtained from
family and community does not always apply in the institutional system. It has often
been reinforced by professionals that students must learn how to deal with the dominant
culture and through this process begin to build college skills and capital to assist in their
success. It is difficult and at times impossible for students to begin to navigate in
unchartered waters to find the resources they need to succeed, especially when cultural
and social capital are needed immediately in order to navigate a foreign system based on
dominant cultural values.
Reziliency Theory
According to Waller, Okamoto, and Hankerson (2002), American Indian communities
have social and cultural capital, which promote educational resilience and persistence
(Starks, 2010). American Indian individuals and communities have overcome harsh
31
conditions through what Belcourt-Dittloff (2006) calls “reziliency.” Reziliency means
resiliency factors, skills, and processes used to cope with oppressive conditions
(Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006). Reziliency is a clever term that makes one think about
reservations or, in short “the rez.” However, Belcourt-Dittloff (2006) did not mean for
the term to pertain specifically to American Indians living on reservations partially
because a majority of Natives live in urban areas and partially because she wanted to coin
a term that would encompass the psychological ways in which both reservation and urban
Natives adapt in positive ways to adversity or trauma. For the purposes of this study,
reziliency will be used interchangeably with the term resiliency and will pertain to
positive ways in which students have adapted to oppressive conditions within their
learning or educational environments. The theoretical framework provides a basis for the
Native Student Success Equation, discussed in detail later. Figure 5 is the theoretical
framework incorporating TribalCRT, Community Cultural Wealth, and Reziliency
Theory.
Student Success Equation
(Needs Being Met – Barriers) + Resiliency Characteristics = Student Success
Based on TribalCRT Institutional Barriers Include:
• Deficit Model Thinking
• Assimilation Strategies
• Lack of Cultural Competence/Understanding
• Institutionalized Racism Stemming from Colonialism
32
Operational Definitions
The following definitions will be used throughout this study:
American Indian/Native American/Indigenous/Native/Indian
These terms are used interchangeably and refer to a person’s identity or a
population. A person having origins in any of the original homeland locations
now located within the United States proper. A person who maintains cultural
identification through tribal affiliation, enrollment or community recognition
(Stoney Brook, 2011).
California Community Colleges (CCC)
Composed of 72 different districts and 112 campuses. The largest postsecondary
education system in the U.S.
Community Cultural Wealth
Yosso’s (2005, 2006) concept that brings together various forms of capital (listed
below) and validates cultural capital obtained from the community. Yosso
challenges the Cultural Deficit Model.
o Aspirational Capital: from Yosso’s (2005, 2006) model of community
cultural wealth. A form of capital that provides hope in the face of
oppression and hardship. This type of capital inspires students to aspire to
their greatest potential or goal.
o Cultural Capital: refers to an inherent ability to access resources and
opportunities associated with birthright, family, culture, and community;
33
knowledge of college-going processes and skills for navigating institutions
of education obtained through family or community knowledge.
o Familial Capital: Yosso’s (2005, 2006) model of community cultural
wealth. This capital is possessed by students whose cultural competency
is a result of their familial connections and the knowledge base that
develops from a shared sense of identity and community. What Delgado
Bernal (1998, 2002) calls “cultural intuition”.
o Navigational Capital: from Yosso’s (2005, 2006) model of community
cultural wealth. Capital or maneuvering skills possessed by students who
need it to navigate through the educational system. Originally not meant
for students of color.
o Resistant Capital: from Yosso’s (2005, 2006) model of community
cultural wealth. Capital possessed by students who have obtained
knowledge and skills created though challenging inequality or social
injustice. Rooted in historic and modern day resistance strategies to
oppression.
o Social Capital: Yosso’s (2005, 2006) model of community cultural wealth
or capital possessed by students made up of networks and community
resources shared locally. Peer and other social stakeholders are influential
in that they possess insider information and can provide emotional
support.
34
Cultural Deficit Model or Deficit Thinking
A framework promoting the belief that minority students and their families are at
fault for poor academic performance because these students enter school without
knowledge or information about how to navigate the system. It is inaccurate and
based on the pervasive assumption or stereotype that minority parents or
communities do not support their children’s education.
Drop Out
Occurs when a student enrolled in school leaves it completely, never to come
back.
Federally Recognized Tribe/Nation
A tribe of people who can trace their ancestry back before the establishment of the
United States, who through treaty have maintained sovereign rights as a domestic
dependent nation within a nation (the United States) by giving up land in
exchange for resources until the end of time.
Historical Trauma
Forms of oppression equating to genocide experienced by Native American
ancestors. Each generation is infused with remembering historical trauma in
order to have coping skills to deal with the outcomes of the experiences of
oppression and acts of genocide that still occur today.
35
Los Rios Community College District (LRCCD)
Consisting of four colleges (i.e., American River, Cosumnes River, Folsom Lake,
and Sacramento City Colleges) serving the Sacramento and surrounding areas.
Reservation
Land set aside by the federal government through treaty, acts of congress, or
presidential decree for American Indian tribes.
Reservation Indian
An American Indian who lives on or who is from the reservation.
Reziliency
A term used interchangeably with the term resiliency pertaining to positive ways
in which students have adapted to their oppressive learning or educational
environments; factors, skills, and processes used to cope with oppressive
conditions.
Sacramento City College (SCC)
SCC is a two-year community college located near Land Park in Sacramento,
California. There are approximately 25,000 students enrolled. SCC provides
higher educational opportunities consisting of career/vocational/technical
certificates or degrees, transfer programs, and courses for personal development.
Stop Out
Occurs when a student enrolled in school leaves for a period of time and then
returns to continue their education.
36
Student Success
For this study, student success is defined as meeting the needs, eliminating the
barriers, and reinforcing the resiliency characteristics of students working toward
the completion of a desired academic goal.
Survivance
A term coined by Deloria (1969, 1971) combining survival and resistance.
Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCRT) & Critical Race Theory (CRT).
A theoretical framework that reveals the systematic exclusion of People of Color
from access and opportunity. Applied to education, this theory allows for analysis
of American Indian students specifically with TribalCRT incorporating elements
of sovereignty and the historic boarding school experience.
Tribally Enrolled
To be enrolled in a federally recognized tribe or to be tribally enrolled has
significance in that enrollees are entitled to benefits or resources as outlined
through original treaties (where land was given up in exchange for resources)
ratified through acts of congress.
Units
A college unit of work is equivalent in lecture courses to one hour in the
classroom and two hours of study preparation time per week. Every course has an
assigned amount of units associated. Students earn a certain number of units in
order to obtain a certificate, degree or to transfer to a four-year institution. The
37
number of units necessary to earn a degree and the courses taken differentiates
between disciplines but certain GE or general education units must be taken in
order to earn a certificate or degree. The number of units of credit is listed with
each course description.
Urban Indian
An American Indian who is from, and who lives in an urban area or off the
reservation.
Assumptions and Limitations
The number of American Indian students who participated in this study may not
represent all the Native students at the college; however, this study provides rich
information not found in previous studies concerning American Indian community
college students. Limitations of this study include (1) the limited sample size living
primarily in the Sacramento and surrounding area, representing some but not all of the
500+ federally recognized tribes and 150 tribes not federally recognized, this being the
case, not all American Indians throughout California or the United States will be
represented; (2) the researcher conducting the study is an American Indian adjunct
faculty member at Sacramento City College who teaches the only Native American
Studies courses offered in the Los Rios District and as such many of the Native
participants in the study may know the researcher; (3) the sample size is small; therefore,
38
the study is limited in the ability to accurately represent all the experiences of all Natives
at Sacramento City College.
Significance of the Study
This study adds to the body of research on American Indian community college
students and provides both qualitative and quantitative data on what is needed to facilitate
student success. Because there are larger numbers of American Indians attending
community college and minimal research about American Indian community college
students has been done, this study contributes to the literature. This study looked at how
needs as well as barriers that exist can be addressed to promote American Indian
community college student success.
Conclusion
The effects of intergenerational oppression and discrimination Native Americans
have experienced, including being silenced or made invisible in institutes of education
has had the negative consequence of unmet needs, substandard educational conditions
(Young, 2010), and an educational deficit that has a spanned generations resulting in
institutionalized barriers, disadvantages, and the minimal success of American Indian
students (Young, 2010). By addressing the educational barriers and needs, and
identifying resiliency strategies, one of the most underserved groups in education,
American Indian community college students can achieve success at greater rates.
39
Bringing together TribalCRT, Community Cultural Wealth and Reziliency
Theory is important for this study in order to create a theoretical lens through which to
view American Indian community college student resiliency and success. Barriers can be
identified and bridges can be built to meet the needs of American Indian community
college students and ultimately support their success.
Chapter 2 provides an in-depth review of the literature analyzing the following
themes related to needs, barriers and resiliency: internal support (family, cultural capital,
community, finances, educational support/ opportunities); internal barriers (family,
cultural capital, community, finances, student’s previous educational experiences,
educational challenges faced by low-income and educationally marginalized students);
external support (academic support services provided by the college, educational benefits
of social and cultural capital through student involvement, current student positive
experiences with peers, faculty, service providers); external barriers (campus climate,
student’s negative experiences with peers, faculty, service providers); and resiliency or
persistence factors.
Chapter 3 describes the research methodology used in this mixed-methods study,
including quantitative surveys and qualitative follow-up focus groups. Chapter 4
provides an in-depth analysis of the data collected. Research questions are used to
interpret the findings. Chapter 5 discusses common themes in the data and concludes
with recommendations for program creation or program improvement as well as a
recommended model to following implications for future research.
40
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Native philosophy tells us, ‘We are, therefore I am.
(Burkhart, 2004, p. 25)
This chapter provides an overview of historical factors, theory, and current
educational research relevant to the study of American Indian community college student
success. Topics covered include: (1) the educational experience of the American Indian;
(2) the connection between Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCRT), Community
Cultural Wealth, and Reziliency Theory within a framework to assist in explaining the
current Indigenous student’s experience in higher education by utilizing a newly
introduced equation for student success focusing on needs, barriers and resiliency
characteristics; (3) contemporary research on Native American community college
students, and finally, (4) American Indian student data from Sacramento City College.
This chapter provides historical background and outlines the findings and contributions
of education scholars and practitioners whose work is significant to the American Indian
struggle for an equitable education.
History
Taking into consideration the educational experience of the American Indian
student, Battiste (2002) emphasized that Eurocentric ideology rejects Indigenous thought
because it does not focus on productivity. This has resulted in Indigenous knowledge
41
being dismissed as inferior to Eurocentric thinking (Brayboy, 2006). The problem lies in
the fact that education in the United States is fundamentally based on Eurocentric
thinking. Hence, the institutionalized education of the American Indian has promoted
and reinforced assimilation, “[which] assumes that what is required is the complete and
utter transformation of Native nations and individuals” (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002,
p. 282). The ultimate goal has always been assimilation through colonization (Brayboy,
2006). This is most evident through examining the early experiences of Natives with
higher education and later with boarding schools.
Indian Education
When discussing Native Nations and education, research has focused on postcontact experience. Even though there is no evidence of a formal education system
before the arrival of the colonists, Indian education has existed for thousands of years
(Raymond, 2004). Indigenous children were taught the skills to survive, unique
languages to transfer information about culture, the significance of their community, and
how to adapt to their ever changing environment (Kolhoff, 1979; Raymond, 2004; U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs [DOIBIA], 1988).
Tribal Colleges
According to Raymond (2004) and White (2007), tribal colleges existed long
before boarding schools were established. One of the first colleges established by Jesuits
in Cuba in 1568 was established for Florida Natives (Woodcock & Alawiye, 2001). The
42
purpose of this college was to “civilize the savage,” a theme that has remained persistent
and pervasive at all levels of education for Indigenous students for close to 500 years.
There is a long history of American Indian college students matriculating at nontribal colleges as well. In the early 1600s, scholars at Harvard saw an opportunity to
fulfill one focal point of Harvard’s mission, to produce Christian clergy to minister to
Natives (Raymond, 2004). Who better to minister to Natives than other Natives who
were Christian, especially those trained as clergy? This ultimately influenced Harvard’s
charter to include the education of Native American youth. In 1656, an Indian College
building was established at the Harvard campus that would house 20 Native students. No
more than six Native students were housed in the Indian College Building at one time
over four decades (Raymond, 2004; Wright & Tierney, 1991). After King Phillips War,
the Indian College Building at Harvard was torn down (Beck, 1995; Raymond, 2004;
Salisbury, 1974; Wright & Tierney, 1991). In the end, very few Indians had lived at
Harvard’s Indian College Building and after graduating, all of them died because of
disease, murder, or accident (Raymond, 2004; Salisbury, 1974; Wright & Tierney, 1991).
This was a definite sign of things to come for Native children who were kidnapped and
forced into the boarding school system.
In 1693, William and Mary College was created to provide higher education to
Native Americans to be clergy who would preach Protestant religious beliefs to other
Natives (Raymond, 2004). Ultimately, none of the students who attended William and
Mary College ever followed through with this goal (Beck, 1995). No more than 25
43
Native American students ever attended William and Mary College and funding stopped
with the outbreak of the War for Independence (Wright & Tierney, 1991). After the war,
no further efforts were made at William and Mary College to recruit or educate Native
students (Beck, 1995; Wright & Tierney, 1991). On a side note, during the same time
frame, Princeton enrolled three Delaware Native students, but after the war no Natives
were enrolled (Beck, 1995).
Dartmouth College, chartered in 1769, was to provide higher education in
theology and agriculture to Natives and colonists (Beck, 1995; Wright & Tierney, 1991).
Dartmouth was yet another college to focus on assimilation strategies. Between 1770 and
1893, 58 Native American students had been admitted with 11 graduating and two
earning additional degrees in medicine (Beck, 1995; Wright & Tierney, 1991).
In the early 1800s, U.S. government policy impacting Native people changed
once again. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the reservation era took hold
promoting an ideology of a separate Indian territory, where Native people were forcibly
moved from their homelands. This meant access to mainstream colleges and universities
became nonexistent because large populations of Natives were moved to rural
reservations where no colleges existed. According to Raymond (2004), “the near-total
isolation from Whites did nothing to prepare Native American students for success in
higher education at White-dominated colleges” (p. 24). But there were ways in which
Natives adapted. One example was the Cherokee Nation, who in 1846 chartered their
own seminary after they were forcibly moved to Oklahoma. This seminary today is
44
known as Northeastern State University. Other tribal colleges began to be established on
or near reservations during the late 1800s and early 1900s.
The Indian Reorganization Act was passed in 1934, which set aside loan monies
to assist with higher education costs for Native students. By 1935, approximately 515
Native American students were enrolled in college (Wright & Tierney, 1991), a number
up 20% from three years earlier (Beck, 1995). In the late 1940s, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) began to offer scholarships to replace loan monies established through the
Indian Reorganization Act (Wright & Tierney, 1991).
The Civil Rights Movement fueled Indian activism and the desire for selfdetermination and self-government. Having the power over their own education is one of
the ultimate expressions of sovereignty (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002; Pavel, Inglebret,
& Banks, 2001; Stein, 1992b). During the 1960s, the Native American college student
dropout rate was 97% (Beck, 1995). Factors preventing American Indian college student
success were found to be lack of preparation to do college level work, institutional racism
(McDonald, 1978), loneliness (Tierney, 1991), economic, emotional, geographic
distances, and cultural differences (Houser, 1991).
It became apparent to tribes in the mid-1900s that for American Indian students
indoctrinated into White society through boarding schools to be successful, they would
need to re-learn their culture, heritage, and traditions and re-establish a secure Indian
identity while at the same time learn new skills (Noel, 2002). American Indian students
would need to counter the cultural shame they learned by attending boarding schools in
45
order to achieve academic success in higher education. But the damage was done. In
1961, only 61 Native Americans graduated from four-year colleges (Boyer, 1997). By
1979, fewer than 15 American Indians had earned a doctorate in social sciences and less
than five a doctorate in mathematics (Clever, 1983). McDonald (1978) determined that
only 3% of American Indian college students actually graduated. A 1995 study showed
the graduation rates for American Indian students at more than 300 colleges and
universities as only 37%, the lowest among any minority groups (Carter and Wilson,
1997).
In 1996, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13021, which established an
advisory committee on Tribal Colleges and Universities, promoted the retention of Indian
languages and culture, and increased federal funding for tribal colleges changing policy
to allow for equal access to the same monies allotted for other colleges and universities
(Executive Order No. 13021, 1996). Also in the late 1990s, approximately 85% of tribal
college students lived below the poverty level (Boyer, 1997). Native students enrolled at
tribal colleges at the time needed transportation, counseling for drug abuse or alcohol
abuse, help with domestic violence issues, child care, and general counseling (Boyer,
1997). Between the late 1990s and early 2000s, approximately half of all Native students
entering tribal colleges had a third- or fourth-grade reading level, required tutoring for a
minimum of one calendar year before they began matriculation, and were deficient in
math skills (Boyer, 1997; Raymond, 2004). These low levels in reading and math are
reflective of an education system that has failed Native students.
46
In 1997, 55% of Native Americans who lived on reservations with a tribal college
were unemployed (Wright, 2000). In 1998, the median salary for graduates with a
certificate was $12,500, with an associates degree $15,115, and a baccalaureate earned
$20,000. A national survey published in 2000 indicated that 91% of students who
graduated from a tribal college in 1998 had decided to pursue another degree or had
found employment (Raymond, 2004). Jobs students obtained were normally with tribal
governments and were in the areas of business or accounting, nursing or health care,
office technology, psychology, social work, and human services (Boyer 1997; Wright,
2000). Of tribal college graduates in 2000, 74% were the first women in their family to
earn a degree, the average age of female graduates was 34, 55% were married, and 72%
had children (Wright, 2000). Overall, this data is very positive, but again the percentage
may be misleading in that so few Natives actually attended tribal colleges. The actual
number may be equitable to or less than the number of Native students who graduated
from a community college and had decided to pursue another degree or who had found
employment. The issue is that this type of data from community colleges is not available.
Few studies have been done on Natives at the community college level. Comparable data
would reveal tremendous information about the success rates of Native students.
Historically, most tribal college instructors were non-Indian (Stein, 1999).
Finding qualified Native American faculty was and still is problematic (Boyer, 1997).
Low faculty salaries contribute to high faculty turnover (Lane, 2001; Stein, 1999).
During the 1997-98 academic year, salaries for full-time tribal faculty averaged $30,000
47
while full-time faculty at public community college averaged $46,000 (Lane, 2001).
Tribal college faculty teach 6-10 different courses per academic year (Tippeconnic &
McKinney, 2003). It was once thought that the reason for high dropout rates was a lack
of Native American educators at tribal college institutions, but with reservation schools
experiencing an increase in Indian educators, the dropout rate has continued to increase.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) comparisons between tribal and public community
colleges in the year 2000 were such that Congress authorized tribal college FTE
reimbursement of $6000 per student but only provided $3849 per FTE student (Lane,
2001). In 2001, federal aid to tribal colleges was down to $3,370 per FTE student while
public community colleges received $7,000 per FTE student (Yates, 2001). Federal FTE
for tribal colleges is for enrolled Native students only. Typically, 15-20% of the student
population at tribal colleges are non-Native (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 2002) and generate no financial reimbursement (Oppelt, 1990).
In 2004, between 25% and 33% of all tribal college students, completed college
with a certificate or degree (Raymond, 2004). These numbers were consistent with nonreservation community college students (Raymond, 2004), but the numbers are
misleading. Because so few Native students attend tribal colleges, success rates for this
demographic seem higher than the norm, when in all actuality, tribal colleges average the
same or worse than other colleges including community colleges. It would also seem
tribal colleges are facing the same challenges as community colleges and four-year
institutions in regard to Native students. This study looks at the experiences of Native
48
students at an urban community college in order to determine the barriers that exist and
the resiliency mechanisms utilized by students, which contribute to their success.
Today there are close to 40 accredited Tribal colleges in the United States
(American Indian Higher Education Consortium, n.d.). Most Tribal College students
come from reservations, but most Natives live in urban areas and attend community
colleges. Tribal colleges on reservations have improved the quality of life for Natives
economically and socially (Pavel et al., 2001; Selden, 2002). Tribal colleges support and
sponsor community events and nearly all colleges have established cultural centers that
double as museums and archives. Studies on reservations have contributed to research on
language revitalization, tribal histories, sacred sites, and tribal perception of land, among
other topic areas (Mortensen, Nelson, & Strauss, 2001). Although few fluent speakers of
Native languages exist, Tribal colleges emphasize learning tribal languages and offer
language courses to students (Raymond, 2004).
As of 2004, 20% of all Native American college students attended tribal colleges.
Given the physical and cultural isolation from mainstream society, the success of
reservation-based colleges in achieving accreditation is no small miracle especially since
tribal colleges are being evaluated based on “standards and expectations foreign to our
tribal environments and needs” (Crazy Bull, 1994, p. 25).
With a new focus on self-determination, new energy sources being found on
reservations, and the contemporary development of businesses and casinos, the demand
for college-educated Indians has been increasing (Oppelt, 1990). To address this need,
49
tribal leaders established two-year community colleges on certain reservations
(Raymond, 2004). But because of historic trauma associated with education via the
boarding school experience, American Indian student success has suffered (Raymond,
2004). Educators have developed new strategies to prepare Native Americans for
success. These strategies have impacted the missions of tribal colleges in that they have
incorporated Native American history and culture alongside a traditional western college
model where courses in specific disciplines transfer to four-year colleges and universities
(Raymond, 2004).
Tribal colleges are distinct institutions because they forge Native American
culture and values with Western curriculum, meeting the same rigorous academic and
administrative standards as mainstream colleges and universities. Tribal colleges have
provided opportunities for individuals to pursue their academic goals, support their
communities, and have assisted tribes in reconnecting to their history, culture, and
languages (Raymond, 2004). But tribal colleges have not been as successful as they
claim in the area of degree obtainment for Native American students (White, 2007). In
White’s (2007) fairly recent study comparing national data sets of Tribal college
persistence and graduation rates with rates of Native students who attend mainstream
institutions of higher education, he found the data did not support the claims of success
tribal colleges have insinuated.
Table 1 is a comparison of data specifically collected on American Indian college
student fall enrollment between community college and tribal colleges in 1990 and 1996.
50
California had the highest number of Native students enrolled in non-tribal colleges in
1996 with 22,852 in number in any institute of higher education. The total number of
American Indian/Alaska Natives community college students enrolled in California in the
fall of 1996 was approximately 25,683 according to the California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office.
Table 1
Comparison of Indian Fall Enrollment, 1990 and 1996
Notes: Data on Tribal College students for fall 1996 include 28 colleges, while figures for fall 1990 include
20 colleges. Data in 1990 were not available for some of the colleges because they did not report to IPEDS
in that year, did not provide fall enrollment figures, or had not been established (NCES, 1990-1997).
51
The percent column is misleading; if you review the raw numbers, you will obtain
a more accurate representation of the actual number of students attending different
colleges and far more Native students attended non-tribal colleges in number. According
to the chart, approximately 131,902 students attended non-tribal colleges versus 10,234
students who attended tribal colleges in 1996. These numbers accurately reflect the low
numbers of Native students who attend tribal colleges.
Boarding Schools
Prior to the establishment of boarding schools, individual American Indian tribes
signed treaties ratified by Congress. Within these treaties were standard provisions for
food, land set aside as reservations, resources, health care, and guaranteed education for
descendents through time in exchange for hundreds of thousands of acres of land.
Because land lasts forever, it was implied through treaty that the resources the federal
government would provide in exchange for land would last forever. In the early 1800s
the federal government decided to partially fulfill the terms of treaty by establishing
reservations and outsourcing the education it guaranteed for American Indians to
missionary-run boarding schools. Funding was set aside for mission schools on
reservations through the first Trade and Intercourse Act (Raymond, 2004; Report on BIA
education, 1988). Through boarding schools, the federal government could not only
fulfill treaty obligations but advance its colonial assimilation agenda by regulating the
contact between American Indian children and their families/tribes in order to isolate and
indoctrinate them.
52
In the early 1800s, the U.S. federal government established a “civilization fund,”
also known as the “assimilation fund,” to support mission schools within Indian territory
to promote a campaign which was meant to assimilate or “civilize the savage” (Adams,
1995; Berry, 1968; Noel, 2002; Prucha, 1979). Mission boarding schools were created
before the public education system had been developed in the United States, so basic
reading, writing, and arithmetic as well as labor skills were taught alongside an onslaught
of White cultural norms and expectations in order to “kill the Indian and save the man”
(Pratt, 1892). Labor was used as a means of civilizing the Indian child, “making him a
willing worker” (Reel, 1902). Girls were assigned to domestic labor such as cleaning,
washing, sewing, ironing, cooking, baking, and general housework, while boys worked
on the farm caring for the cattle, horses, pigs, and crops as well as machinery.
Essentially, the boarding schools served as manual labor factories. It seems ironic that
Native students would purposefully not be prepared for a higher education (Whiteman,
1985) when higher education was created early on for Native people.
Federal agents were paid to kidnap Indian children and forcibly bring them to
boarding schools. Because many children attempted to run away from the schools due to
inhumane treatment and terrible conditions, it was not uncommon for the missionaries to
lie and tell the children their parents had died because of warfare, starvation, or disease to
stop them from trying to escape the confines of the boarding school (Noel, 2002).
Regardless, thousands of children died in their efforts to find their way home, while
others just did not survive the beatings, rape, and molestation that occurred. It was also
53
common practice that if the parents or family members of the children who had been
kidnapped by federal agents arrived at the school to take their children home, they were
often lied to and told their child had died of illness or in transport or that the child was at
another school (Noel, 2002). Another factor at work was that the missionaries would rename the children as they were baptized within the religion, so the children would no
longer be called their name given by their family, but instead a name that was from the
bible, their baptized name (Noel, 2002). So when the parents would come to find their
children and ask for them by their given family name, the missionaries could skirt any
confrontation or responsibility to return the child to the parent by saying there were no
children by that name at that school.
Renaming had another purpose as well, to strip away Indian identity, language
and culture (Noel, 2002). Because Indigenous names were associated with cultural,
linguistic, familial, and spiritual tradition, they were seen as a threat to the primary goal
of assimilation. Renaming was random. Sometimes the children were asked which name
they liked best and that became their first name. Other times, names were randomly
assigned.
By 1884, there were 73 Christian (including Presbyterian, Episcopalian,
Methodist, and Catholic as well as other denominations) boarding schools in existence on
reservations imprisoning approximately 239,000 Indian children (Noel, 2002). By 1902,
113 boarding schools were both on an off the reservation, “with an average attendance of
something over 16,000 pupils, ranging from 5 to 21 years old.
54
These pupils are gathered…partly by cajolery and partly by threats; partly by
bribery and partly by fraud; partly by persuasion and partly by force, they are
induced to leave their homes and their kindred to enter these schools and take
upon themselves the outward semblance of civilized life. (Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, 1902)
Although in 1894 Congress passed an act that made it illegal to send Indian
children to boarding schools outside their state or territory without parental consent, the
practice continued. Thousands of Indian children were sent to the most infamous school,
Carlisle Indian boarding school, established in Pennsylvania in 1879 by Captain Richard
Henry Pratt. Pratt created the school based on a mission when he escorted Apache men
via train to a fort on the east coast. During this mission, Pratt came to a unique
understanding that if the culture were to be completely eradicated from Indians at a
younger age when they were developing their identity, then these children could be raised
White, be saved from their savagery, and become contributing members of society. He
was not alone in his ideology. In fact, Price, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and
Lamar, the Secretary of the Interior, both subscribed to the same notion that Indians must
be assimilated or die (Adams, 1975). Culture and family life for American Indians was
being forcibly altered by indoctrinating the youth into Christian religions and assimilating
them through Eurocentric teachings promoted by boarding schools and the federal
government. This alone has led to an inherent mistrust of not only the federal
government, but of Christian religions and, importantly, educational institutions.
In 1901, W.A. Jones, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at the time, decided the
off-reservation boarding schools needed to be shut down because they were too costly
55
and did not encourage tribal sovereignty or self-determination. Federal funding consisted
of 11-18 cents per day appropriated to feed one boarding school student (Merriam et al.,
1928; Whiteman, 1985). Jones continued to support on-reservation boarding schools.
The next Commissioner of Indian Affairs instituted day schools in the Indian territories
and on reservations in addition to the boarding schools that already existed.
During the early 1900s as tribes began to exercise their inherent sovereignty,
deals were made with the federal government to continue to operate on-reservation
boarding schools (Noel, 2002). In addition, many states also entered into contracts with
tribes to maintain local control of Indian schools as well as the federal government.
Deals were made with four states: California, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah to
provide funding for Indian schools (Noel, 2002). These contracts were the beginning of
the inclusion of American Indian children in public schools. By 1912, the population of
Indian children in public schools was larger than in government-sponsored day or
boarding schools, moving further toward the assimilation of Indian children into
mainstream society (Noel, 2002).
In 1934, Congress passed the Johnson-O’Malley Act, authorizing the Secretary of
the Interior to develop contracts with states to provide Native American students with a
public education (Whiteman, 1985). Sixteen boarding schools were closed and replaced
by 84 day schools (Whiteman, 1985). During this time, BIA-operated reservation
schools began to include expanded Indian heritage lessons in the curriculum (Reyhner,
1989) and experiments with bilingual education (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002).
56
In public schools, American Indian children were subject to intelligence testing to
determine if they could meet the same expectations as mainstream White American
children (Noel, 2002). American Indian children were expected to already have the
knowledge needed to do well on the intelligence tests because several generations had
been indoctrinated and assimilated through the boarding school experience (Noel, 2002).
The actual experiences of American Indian students was documented in research
revealing that institutions encouraged cultural shame be utilized by teachers in Indian
schools to reinforce certain behaviors (Noel, 2002). This idea of cultural shame was
persistent and pervasive throughout the early to late 1900s and still exists in the psyche of
older generations. It has now become part of the historic trauma currently being passed
to successive generations and has become a form of internalized oppression reinforcing a
self-fulfilling prophecy of educational failure.
Investigations by Congress took place in the 1920s to determine the effects of the
Dawes Allotment Act and the boarding school system, which removed tens of thousands
of children from their homes to be assimilated through Christian doctrine into U.S.
society (Noel, 2002; Young, 2010). The outcome was the Merriam report of 1928, which
criticized Native American education and documented the atrocities that occurred within
the system. But bringing light to the injustice of subjecting Native children to extreme
assimilation policies and procedures through forced relocation and education did not
improve education for Native children (Young, 2010). In some ways education became
worse. In the 1940s and 1950s, the federal government terminated approximately 100
57
federally recognized tribes out of the 500 that existed (Spring, 1997). This policy was
meant to apply yet another assimilation strategy to tribes to break them up and relocate
Indigenous people to urban areas and integrate them socially and culturally (Young,
2010). This action caused Natives to move deeper into poverty because they no longer
had access to their land base or treaty agreed, government guaranteed resources (Garrett,
1996).
Although a majority of Native people moved to urban areas, relocation failed
(Young 2010). In 1969, the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare issued
the Kennedy Report. The official title was Indian Education: A National Tragedy – A
National Challenge. This report revealed the actual intent of the federal government to
take Native land and assimilate Indigenous people. A very important part of the Kennedy
report was that the federal government had recognized the absolute failure of the
American public education system to address Native students’ needs and documented the
assimilation policy as the reason for this failure (Young, 2010). A vital recommendation
in this report was to obtain Native participation and relinquish control of Indian education
to Native people (Spring, 1997; Young, 2010). After the release of this report, efforts
were underway to create programs and revisit education policy to ensure the efficacy and
solvency of education reform for Native students (Young, 2010). In 1972, the Indian
Education Act was passed to provide financial assistance for Native students to meet their
needs (Spring, 1977; Young, 2010). In 1975, the Indian Self-Determination and
58
Education Assistance Act passed. This act gave power to tribes to run their own health
and education programs (Spring, 1997; Young, 2010) on and off the reservation.
K-12 American Indian Students Today
The educational experience of Native students has improved, but they “continue
to be disproportionately affected by poverty, low educational attainment, and [have]
access to fewer educational opportunities than other students” (Beaulieu, 2000, p. 6).
Sheets (2003) maintains social injustice is ever-present within contemporary education
systems and Native children continue to have their rights to a quality education denied.
Tippeconnic and Faircloth (2006) reinforced that many Native students were still not
successful in school in 2006. Beaulieu (2000) documented the high dropout rates for
Native students, while Young’s (2010) research revealed they are often unprepared to
learn when they begin school; they achieve success at lower rates and few enter and
finish college.
Reyhner’s (1992) research revealed several factors negatively impacting Native
students, including uncaring and untrained teachers, large schools, tracked classes,
inappropriate curriculum, lack of parental involvement, inappropriate testing/assessment
and student retention. These factors impact student success across the board, but because
a majority of Native students attend public schools, these factors have become specific to
this group as well (Young, 2010).
59
American Indians have traditionally scored low on standardized tests. On the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Native students have scored up to 74 points lower on the
combined verbal and math tests and 2.0 to 2.2 points lower on the ACT (Pavel, 1999).
Fox (1999) claimed standardized tests are actually a measure of acculturation into
mainstream society. Fox (1999) argues, “successful test performance correlates with
socioeconomic status” (p. 165), which indicates Native students are at a distinct
disadvantage (Young, 2010). In addition, Starnes (2006) found Native students
experience gaps in knowledge, which demonstrates they are being taught in a system
culturally incompatible and irrelevant. They are also being tested in a hostile
environment designed specifically to place them at a disadvantage to preserve power for
the ruling class (Starnes, 2006; Young, 2010). Now that high-stakes testing has become
the norm in schools in order to meet state and federal standards and obtain monies from
these sources, this type of one shot deal has become very damaging to Native student
retention and success rates (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). The type of curriculum design
utilized in high-stakes testing is not culturally relevant to many students meaning Native
students are even further disengaged and pushed out or they are allowed to drop out for
the sake of an increase in the overall district test score (Nichols & Berliner, 2005). This
places an emphasis on the vested interest in the failure of some students, Native students
falling directly in this category.
Schools on and off the reservation, “emphasize a history and culture that does not
include American Indians” (Starnes, 2006, p. 185). Identity development of Native youth
60
has been full of cultural conflict due to differences between tribal traditions and
mainstream American social and educational system expectations (Garrett, 1996).
Cultural conflict can lower self-esteem and foster internal doubts about what can be
achieved (Whitbeck et. al., 2001). In the 1987 study, Sanders found that as early as fifth
and sixth grades, many Native students began to withdraw from the education system.
The result was discouraged youth confused about their identities and capabilities, who
felt ashamed because of their inability to meet educational expectations; they dropped out
of the system (Sanders, 1987).
As a majority of Native American youth attend public schools, there is a concern
schools are not reaching out to parents or the community to help Native youth succeed in
their educational endeavors (Tippeconnic, 2000). Success in elementary school
influences success in high school and into college (Young, 2010). Young (2010) found
that only 31% of Native students across the nation completed their core curriculum for
high school graduation.
Swisher and Tippeconnic (1999) stated that teachers and administrators maintain
stereotypes of Native people, and their attitudes and behaviors reflect these biases to the
extent that prejudicial concepts remain in academic curriculum. Teacher attitude about
students, their knowledge and understanding of the students’ culture, as well as their
understanding of the curriculum impact student behavior and academic performance
(Yagi, 1985). Mutually respectful and caring relationships are essential to educational
success (Swisher & Tippeconnic, 1999; Wilson, 1991; Young, 2010). Ogbu and
61
Simmons (1998) championed the culturally responsive instruction concept whereby
appropriate instruction acknowledges and accommodates culture in the classroom in an
attempt to bridge the gap of educational success between White students and students of
color. Culturally responsive teaching uses a child’s culture to build a bridge to academic
success (Pewewardy, Hammer, & Cahape, 2003).
Cultural assimilation strategies by established educational organizations have
meant drastic change, cultural loss, hardship, and a future of mistrust of any education
system for American Indians. In facing genocidal practices of attempts to eliminate
identity, cultural memory, spiritual beliefs, language, and community connection,
American Indians have been resilient. Whether carried out by church or state,
assimilation strategies have not succeeded (Salisbury, 1974). What has persisted is
poverty, which is a direct result of a limited elementary vocational education (Woodcock
& Alawiye, 2001) made compulsory by a genocidal boarding school system. Today,
tribally-controlled reservation colleges have given Native nations control over their own
education and, moreover, hope for the first time in history for a future of highly educated
Natives secure in their cultural identity and propelling their Native communities into the
future (Oppelt, 1990). Yet little research has been done on factors contributing to
American Indian community college student success.
American Indians are not only victims of an undervalued education system, but
they are failing to persist in overwhelming numbers at all levels of education (Young,
2010). According to Bowman (2003), Native student success, persistence, and
62
graduation rates at all levels of education are in great need of research. More
importantly, Deyhle and Swisher (1997) claimed research done on cultural integrity and
strengths incorporated into the education environment has been promising for some
communities. It is important researchers continue to study Native students in education
in order to apply changes in policy, which will have a direct impact on practical
application within the classrooms. Bowman (2003) holds that future research should
build on culturally relevant pedagogy to impact kindergarten- through graduate schoollevel policy, which will, in turn, make change within the entire system of education.
Guiding Theoretical Framework
The guiding theoretical framework was a combination of Tribal Critical Race
Theory, Community Cultural Wealth, and Reziliency Theory. TribalCRT was used to
explore barriers and support networks as well as evaluate and challenge institutional
assumptions, practices, and policies that may hinder American Indian community college
student success at Sacramento City College.
Tribal Critical Race Theory
Tribal Critical Race Theory has its roots in Critical Race Theory. Critical Race
Theory (CRT) has its origin in Critical Legal Studies (CLS), developed during the civil
rights movement to expose how laws were contradictory and contributed to maintaining a
biased social hierarchy in the United States (Brayboy, 2006; Gordon, 1990; Ramirez,
2011). In the mid 1970s, Critical Race Theory (CRT) focused originally on race used
63
historically in scientific research and through contemporary assessments in order to
perpetuate racial hegemony (Banks, 1993). Later, class and gender were added to
holistically address oppression and discrimination and create social and individual
transformation (Fay, 1987; Solórzano, 1998; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001;
Solórzano & Yosso, 2001; Tierney, 1993). Critical Race Theory provides a background
for Tribal Critical Race Theory in that it recognizes historic and contemporary social
injustice and how oppression and discrimination permeate institutions of education.
Critical Race Theory (CRT), as it pertains to education, addresses the fact that
racism is widespread, enduring and embedded in institutions (Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995; Russell, 1992; Solórzano, 1997, 1998; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001;
Solórzano & Yosso, 2000, 2001, 2005). Educational institutions are not objective,
racially neutral, based on merit, and do not provide equal opportunity (Crenshaw, 1989,
1993; Delgado Bernal, 2002; Delgado & Stefancic, 2000; Ramirez, 2011; Solórzano &
Yosso, 2001, 2002; Villalpando, 2003). Even though systems of education claim to be
fair and unbiased, students of color continue to be marginalized and oppressed as
evidenced by the achievement gap (Nevarez & Wood, 2011) and as revealed in
inconsistent policy and practice (Yosso, 2005). The CRT framework assists in explaining
pre-existing barriers that impact American Indian students both outside and inside the
educational system.
64
Because Critical Race Theory is the core of Tribal Critical Race Theory, it is
necessary to review the five themes that emerge in Critical Race Theory (CRT) as it
pertains to education:
1. Race and racism are widespread, enduring and are “a central rather than a
marginal factor in defining and explaining individual experiences” (Russell, 1992,
pp. 762-763). This means oppression must be recognized as playing a role in
Native students’ experiences in higher education.
2. Educational institutions are not objective, racially neutral, based on merit, and do
not provide equal opportunity (Crenshaw, 1989, 1993; Delgado Bernal, 2002;
Delgado & Stefancic, 2000; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002; Villalpando, 2003).
Education policies and practices are called into question for limiting opportunities
for minority students (Yosso, 2005) and maintaining power and privilege for the
dominant group (Calmore, 1992; Solórzano, 1997; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). In
this way, CRT provides a social justice lens reinforcing liberation ideology
(Friere, 1970, 1973; hooks, 1994).
3. CRT promotes a social justice research agenda to eradicate racism, classism, and
sexism and empower underrepresented students (Friere, 1970, 1973; Solórzano &
Delgado Bernal, 2001; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002).
4. CRT recognizes that the experiences of students of color are valid and that data
from these students is significant to finding solutions to the issues they experience
65
(Bell, 1987; Carrasco, 1996; Delgado, 1989, 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Olivas,
1990; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002).
5. Critical Race theorists support the notion that the effects of racism on people of
color should be viewed in historic and contemporary timeframes (Delgado, 1984,
1992; Garcia, 1995; Harris, 1994; Olivas, 1990; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002)
as well as through multiple disciplinary lenses (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002).
Most importantly, CRT scholars work toward eliminating racism, sexism, and
classism in education (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Parker, 1998;
Solorzano & Yosso, 2001) by reinforcing that change can and should take place in
policy and procedure.
CRT has its limitations. Although it is holistic in nature, incorporating many
forms of discrimination, it is limited in that it does not focus on nor address the specific
needs of each ethnic population. As a result, Latino Critical Race Theory (LatCrit)
(Delgado Bernal, 2002; Espinoza, 1990; Hernandez-Truyol, 1997; Montoya, 1994;
Villalpando, 2003), Asian Critical Race Theory (AsianCrit) (Chang, 1993, 1998) and
Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCrit) (Brayboy, 2006) have been developed.
Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCRT) is a valid framework that allows for the
analysis of programs and problems experienced by American Indian students within
institutes of education (Brayboy, 2006). As discussed in Chapter 1, TribalCRT addresses
the legal, social and political aspects of the relationship between the United States federal
government and American Indians (Brayboy, 2006), which is very complex because
66
tribes have sovereignty, a domestic dependent nation status and treaty rights that
guarantee education to enrolled descendents. According to Brayboy (2006), there are
nine tenets of Tribal Critical Race Theory:
1. colonization is endemic; 2. U.S. policies pertaining to Indigenous peoples are
rooted in imperialism, White supremacy, and a desire for material gain; 3.
Indigenous peoples occupy a liminal space that accounts for both the political and
racialized natures of their identities; 4. Indigenous peoples have a desire to obtain
and forge tribal sovereignty, tribal autonomy, self-determination, and selfidentification; 5. the concepts of culture, knowledge, and power take on new
meaning when examined through an Indigenous lens; 6. governmental and
educational policies toward Indigenous peoples are intimately linked around the
problematic goal of assimilation; 7. Tribal philosophies, beliefs, customs,
traditions, and visions for the future are central to understanding the lived realities
of Indigenous peoples, but they also illustrate the differences and adaptability
among individuals and groups; 8. stories are not separate from theory; they make
up theory and are therefore real and legitimate sources of data and ways of being;
9. theory and practice are connected in deep and explicit ways such that scholars
must work towards social change. (pp. 429-430).
TribalCRT provides a lens through which to observe American Indian students and their
struggle to overcome barriers in colleges and universities.
TribalCRT is used to analyze the experiences of currently enrolled Sacramento
City College (SCC) American Indian community college students within the social
justice framework. Native students must have taken or must be currently enrolled in at
least one community, junior, or tribal college course. By applying TribalCRT to higher
education, assessments can be done on educational procedures, programs, and policies to
address barriers to American Indian student educational success.
As stated in Chapter 1, Brayboy (2006) identified three types of knowledge that
coexist: cultural knowledge, the knowledge of survival, and academic knowledge
67
(Brayboy, 2006). To review, cultural knowledge (also known as cultural capital for the
purpose of this study) encompasses everything a person knows as a member of a
particular cultural group, specifically what individuals know as members of tribal nations
(Brayboy, 2006). Knowledge of survival or resistance capital/survivance incorporates
adaptation strategies that have been learned as well as the personal choice made with the
community to change and adapt in order to survive. Knowledge of survival promotes
resiliency, another significant factor added to the theoretical framework. Academic
knowledge is seen as more valid than Indigenous ways of knowing and comes from
institutes of education (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Battiste, 2002; Harrison & Papa,
2005; Kawagley, 1995; Medicine, 2001). Academic knowledge and cultural knowledge
blend and balance each other (Brayboy, 2006) and serve as another key element to
survival (Brayboy, 2006; Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2004, 2005; Deloria, 1970; Medicine,
2001). It is important to combine multiple forms of knowledge in order to manifest the
power for change. Brayboy (2006) explained, “power is rooted in a group’s ability to
define themselves, their place in the world, and their traditions”(p. 435). Power is
essential and equates to inherent sovereignty. Because power is based in the community,
it is shared (Brayboy, 2006). What follows is the ability to meet the needs of the people
through the rights to self-identify, self-govern, and self-educate. One element added to
this equation is adaptation. Brayboy (2006) accounted for change while Vizenor (1998)
and Vizenor and Lee (1999) added perserverance. Together these equate to survivance
(Deloria, 1970).
68
According to Brayboy (2006), “culture is the base for knowledge that ultimately
leads to power” (p. 436). Brayboy (2006) incorporated a reciprocal nature between
knowledge and power. While culture acts as a stabilizing force providing individuals
with identity, the dynamic nature of culture is its ability to change. Knowledge is
essential for culture to survive because through knowledge, information about the culture,
cultural boundaries, and ways in which the culture has and can adapt or change is passed
down to successive generations. Cultural groups define and identify themselves, a source
of power (Brayboy, 2006). This base model representing Brayboy’s (2006) TribalCRT is
used within the larger theoretical framework.
Figure 6. Brayboy’s (2006) Tribal Critical Race Theory
69
Figure 7. Tribal Critical Race Theory Further Detailed (Brayboy, 2006)
Another fundamental aspect of TribalCRT is recognizing that governmental and
educational policies toward Indigenous people have promoted and reinforced assimilation
(Brayboy, 2006). Early treaties guaranteed federal provisions for education to Natives
(Klug & Whitfield, 2003), but the interpretation and implementation of an appropriate
education was left to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The BIA’s perspective an
education was one that promoted assimilation and the abandonment of tribal culture and
language (Brayboy, 2006; Klug & Whitfield, 2003). Attempts at complete assimilation
through education have failed (Brayboy, 2006). TribalCRT (Brayboy, 2006) outright
70
rejects historic assimilation strategies of educational institutions to replace cultural
knowledge with academic knowledge.
Deyhle (1995) documented that successful Indigenous students are those who
maintain a strong identity and do not allow their educational experience to negatively
affect their self-identity or self-worth (Fordham, 1996; Ogbu, 1987, 1993). Brayboy
(2006) acknowledged educational institutions today are not blatantly working toward
assimilation but also recognized assimilation has become part of the structure or very
system of western education. Brayboy (2006) mentioned education could provide so
much more in teaching students how to combine cultural knowledge and power with
academic knowledge to promote individual survivance (survival + resistance) and tribal
sovereignty.
There has been much debate over the value of competition over cooperation in
relation to the ideology of capitalistic individualism reinforced in education. It is
assumed the primary reason students are obtaining an education is not to assist their
community, but to climb the corporate ladder. This is not always the case, especially for
Native Americans. Recent education research has reinforced a connection between
students who succeed and obtain good paying jobs and what they give back to their
community, especially in volunteer time and taxes. Taxes help pay for education, so
those who have received an education participate within a system to perpetuate education
for future generations, thereby cooperating within a system for the greater good of the
community. But in discussing cooperation versus competition in reference to Indigenous
71
students, researchers must recognize the work of Brayboy (1999), Deyhle (1992, 1995),
Deyhle and Margonis (1995), Erickson and Mohatt (1982), Foley (1995, 1996), and
Philips (1983) finding that Indigenous students are much more focused on cooperation
versus competition because of the cultural knowledge they possess.
Brayboy (2006), Burkhart (2004), and Deloria (1969, 1988) revealed the
perception of cooperation through the educational institution lens is seen as a deficit
rather than as a strength for Native students. According to Lomawaima (1994, 1995),
boarding schools were built to reinforce individualism and competition. Stereotypes of
the unmotivated or lazy Indian who cannot be independent or self-sufficient because
he/she is not competitive still exist today and are a throwback from the Dawes Allotment
Act era (Brayboy, 2004a, 2005).
Researchers should consider that success for Indigenous students may be tied to
survivance (survival + resistance) and the connection between power and community
(Brayboy, 1999, 2004a, 2005, 2006). Scholars must look at why Native students attend
colleges and universities in the first place, which is to primarily to assist their
communities so “education becomes a tool for empowerment and liberation for the
community” (Brayboy, 2006, p. 438). This may be another issue with which Native
students deal within the system of higher education in that education tends to focus on the
individual and personal accomplishments versus the individual as part of a larger
community.
72
TribalCRT supports action or activism, the application of theory to practice, or
praxis (Brayboy, 2006; Williams, 1997). Scholars who adopt TribalCRT as a working
philosophy work for social justice confronting inequity and assimilation practices.
Researchers strive to create systems or make change in organizations that will address the
needs of Indigenous people and their communities (Burkhart, 2004).
Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCRT) at its core challenges the notion that
educational institutions, “serve as bastions of objectivity, meritocracy, color blindness,
race neutrality, and equal opportunity” (Ramirez, 2011, p. 46). These frameworks expose
color blindness and race neutrality for what they really are, a strategy to avoid addressing
oppression, discrimination, and inequity within the system to maintain power and
privilege for the dominant groups in American society (Calmore, 1992; Delgado, 1989;
Villalpando, 2004). Higher education promotes the ideology that all students have equal
opportunity to be successful, while TribalCRT challenges this notion through analyzing
the inequitable success rates of minority students.
TribalCRT challenges the Cultural Deficit Model, which has been used to explain
discrimination in a way that blames the victim or student for lacking certain traits or
qualities (Ramirez, 2011). For example, in studying high dropout rates of minority
students, researchers have stated that the culture of the academic environment is too
different from what minority students are used to and because of this difference, it
becomes difficult and stressful implying minority students do not have the ability to adapt
or overcome the “dissonance created by conflicting cultures, [which] results in [their]
73
academic non-persistence” or high dropout rates (Erickson as cited in Gloria & Robinson
Kurpius, 2001, p. 88).
This type of ideology, therefore, blames the minority student for being too
different and for not having the motivation or innate ability to adapt. Just because
minority students can adapt, does it mean they should? Is this implying that some
minorities can and should adapt? The Cultural Deficit Theory ethnocentrically judges
Indigenous culture to be deficient in nature, promoting racial stereotypes. A few
stereotypes that fit in with this framework include always being late or lazy and
transferring a culture of poverty from parent to child (Banfield, 1970; Heller, 1966).
These traits are to be overcome once assimilated into the dominant society. Yosso (2006)
cited little evidence to support the deficit model. Researchers like Benjamin, Chambers,
and Reiterman (1993) abandoned deficit theory and leaned more toward CRT and
cultural retention at the same time managing education systems, supporting the notion
that instead of cultural knowledge being defective, cultural strengths exist.
Educational institutions subscribe to the deficit model through adopting what
Freire (1970, 1973, 2009) termed the banking method, used to infuse students who are
empty receptacles (with no cultural resources or skills of their own) with academic and
cultural knowledge judged to be essential by mainstream society (Yosso, 2006). Note
that it is presumed by educators that students do not come into the education system with
previous valuable cultural knowledge. Instead they must learn what is valuable through
their teachers and pre-writ curriculum. Educators presume they work in educational
74
institutions that are fair, equitable, and effective systems and what needs to change are
the students, parents, families, and communities (Yosso, 2005). This is an inaccurate
perception clouded by stereotypes, power, and privilege. Unfortunately this theory is still
utilized by educational professionals including faculty, counselors, and administrators
(Yosso, 2006).
The Cultural Deficit Theory/Model has its roots in Capital Theory, which is also
associated with the Funds of Knowledge Theory. Capital Theory was developed over a
span of 250 years by economists Smith (1723-1790) and Marx (1818-1883) amongst
others. Capital Theory analyzes links between production, growth, value, and
distribution to explain why capital produces a return that keeps itself intact while at the
same time producing interest or a permanent profit (Lawson, 2011; Ramirez, 2011). The
greater the capital, the more resources a person has to interact within their social and
economic environment. Traditional economists interpret capital to mean raw materials
and wages while Marxist economists view capital as social or cultural resources (Bliss,
1975; Harcourt, 1972). Tinto (1975) considered cultural and educational resources as
capital to be used in institutes of higher education.
Bourdieu (1973, 1977a, 1986) built on Capital Theory by relating social class
status and how it impacts educational attainment via parental education and family
expectations (Lawson, 2011; Ramirez, 2011). Parents pass on to their children cultural
capital in the form of expectations, attitudes, experiences, and knowledge to succeed in
systems of education (Ramirez, 2011). This type of knowledge, specific skills, and
75
resources work as advantages, considered cultural and social capital and brought to the
educational environment to assist students in their educational aspirations, which
ultimately impact class mobility (Ramirez, 2011).
In a capitalist classist society, knowledge possessed by the upper and middle
classes serves as valuable capital (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Ramirez, 2011; Yosso,
2005). The class system in the United States is so restrictive, very few ever leave the
class into which they are born, and the majority of the population is impoverished. If a
student does not possess cultural or social resources that apply to the educational
environment, they are automatically at a disadvantage (Bourdieu, 1977a; Bourdieu,
1977b; Throsby, 1999). Because cultural capital derives from cultural knowledge and
skills, attitudes, and economic opportunities (Borjas, 1992; Lawson, 2011; Ramirez,
2011; Wassmer, Moore, & Shulock, 2004), students possess differing levels of skills and
knowledge they can use within their environments, which ultimately impacts opportunity,
access, and achievement.
In addition, Coleman (1988) and Portes (1988) discussed the importance of peers
and group involvement as a source of capital. American Indian students generally do not
come from families who have benefitted from higher education or knowledge of available
resources (Ramirez, 2011). These individuals have little access to families with valuable
knowledge that allow for access and opportunity to be socially mobile. Bourdieu (1986)
and Freire (1970, 1973, 2009) argued education is the great equalizer in that students can
become socially mobile through obtaining a formal education. But it is blatantly clear
76
American Indian students would not have the same access to resources to become
successful in their educational endeavors as their Caucasian counterparts (intersecting
race with class), who have an unfair advantage.
Bourdieu (1986) implied the class system is set in that it reinforces its very
survival through systemic biases apparent in education through the academic
achievement gap for minority students. What is even more disturbing is the application
of the deficit model to people of color suggesting innate deficits prevent the accumulation
of cultural and social capital, therefore restricting academic achievement and social
mobility (Yosso, 2005). Educational institutions often focus on new ways to assist
disadvantaged or at-risk ethnic minority/lower class students who do not have the needed
skills, knowledge, or cultural capital to succeed (Ramirez, 2011; Valenzuela, 1999;
Yosso, 2005). But this is not 100% effective. One of the primary issues with cultural
capital is that it is based on capitalism and some traits like independence and competition
are worth more than others. This type of thinking is ethnocentric and promotes inequality
because not all cultures believe these traits are valuable. Because profit can be made
from inequality, capitalism promotes inequity and discrimination (Freire, 1970, 1973,
2009).
The educational system requires certain skills be acquired by students for them to
operate within the environment and become successful. Resources within this
environment (including financial aid) are highly regulated and serve as a stopgap
mechanism for students judged to be not serious about their education or those who only
77
see education as a means to obtain free money. One must be careful when stereotyping
students, specifically those at a disadvantage who would benefit the greatest from the
system, as automatically deviant and wanting to take advantage of the benefits of the
system. This notion works to blame the victim of the inequities in the system and is
clearly an outcome of those in privilege and power working to keep the resources and
information to a limited few or perpetuate inequity in the educational and social class
realm.
The Funds of Knowledge Theory by Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992)
explains that the activities and information provided to a student can either add to the
student’s fund of college knowledge or it can provide a gap from which the knowledge
must be obtained elsewhere (Andrews & Yee, 2006; Ares & Buendia, 2007; RubensteinArila, 2006; Velez-Ibanez & Greenberg, 1992) in order for the student to succeed.
Included in these funds are cultural capital and social capital, all of which can have a
significant impact on students’ educational experiences and success. Capital funds can
also be applied to the cultural beliefs and values passed down through a family. As the
culture of higher education may differ from students’ home cultures, they must
incorporate both belief and value systems into their own. Students’ home lives have a
significant impact on their educational experiences, goals, and achievement, which
according to the Funds of Knowledge Theory (Moll et al., 1992) may be viewed as a
deficit. This theory is important because the gaps in information may be seen as barriers
but according to Yosso (2005), a student’s home life, associated with cultural and
78
familial capital, could never be considered a deficit and the fact that it may be seen as a
deficit by educators is actually the root problem.
Community Cultural Wealth
Yosso’s (2005) Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) focuses on the importance of
unrecognized assets (Ramirez, 2011) within communities of color. Cultural Wealth is
accumulated through identifying and utilizing several types of capital including cultural,
social, familial, navigational, linguistic, and resistant capital (Auerbach, 2001; Delgado
Bernal, 1997, 2001; Faulstich Orellana, 2003; Ramirez, 2011; Solórzano & Delgado
Bernal; 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Yosso, 2005). These resources are then utilized or
transacted within the community in which the individual is a part. Yosso (2005)
challenges the Cultural Deficit Model and Cultural Capital Theory through Community
Cultural Wealth (CCW), which focuses on the importance of these unrecognized assets
(Ramirez, 2011) within communities of color.
79
Figure 8. A model of community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005)
Cultural capital refers to an inherent ability to access resources and opportunities
associated with birthright, family, culture, and community, knowledge of the collegegoing processes and skills for navigating institutions of education obtained through
family or community knowledge (Yosso, 2005). Familial Capital (Yosso, 2005) is
possessed by students who are culturally competent because of their connections built by
family. As a form of cultural wealth, familial capital within the Indigenous community
usually originates with the extended family including immediate living kin, grandparents,
aunts, uncles, cousins, close friends who are considered family, and dead ancestors.
Familial capital carries with it a sense of identity, community, history, and memory. A
80
commitment to the greater good and survival of the community serves as another
extension of kin.
Social capital (Yosso, 2005) is made up of networks and community resources
shared locally (Ramirez, 2011). Peer and other social stakeholders are influential in that
they possess insider information, and they can provide emotional support. American
Indian students may feel more at home or welcome in the environment where they spend
time with peers of similar ethnic backgrounds and educational aspirations. Students who
receive academic and emotional support from counselors and faculty know they are not
alone and can receive the assistance they need to succeed.
Navigational Capital refers to the maneuvering skill set possessed by students
who successfully navigate through the educational system (Yosso, 2005, 2006). This
type of capital was originally not accessible by students of color because institutions were
created with racial, gender, and class bias. Historically, American Indian education was
limited to boarding schools who provided up to an eighth-grade class level instruction
partially because of stereotypes that American Indians were intellectually inferior but
also because by limiting their education, they would be limited to certain skill sets
placing them as servants, maids, and in other vocations that paid minimal wage. This
also prevented Native students from obtaining navigational capital in higher education.
Resistance Capital (Freire, 1970, 1973, 2009; Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 1994;
Solorzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Yosso, 2005) is acquired by students who have
obtained knowledge and skills by challenging inequity and social injustice. As a form of
81
cultural wealth, resistance capital carries with it strength and momentum from historic
and continued contemporary forms of resistance to oppression (Deloria, 1969). Resistant
capital is transferred from generation to generation through children being raised,
“witnessing and participating in civil demonstrations, acts of political criticism and civil
rights assertion” (Ramirez, 2011, p. 43). Deloria (1969) discussed survival and resistance
and coined the concept of survivance, definitely related to resistant capital. This type of
capital is rooted in historic and contemporary resistance strategies.
With the exception of linguistic capital, all the aforementioned types of capital or
wealth are placed in the theoretical framework and researched in this study. The primary
reason linguistic capital is being omitted is because it pertains to students who speak
English as a second language. Since the community college being studied is located in an
urban area, a distance from any established reservation that may have students who speak
their Indigenous Tribal language, it is expected a majority of the Native students who
participate in this study have English as their first and primary language. Forms of
capital contributing to cultural wealth are reviewed and related to met needs, resiliency,
and contributing factors to success. In addition, how American Indian students rank
these as factors as perceived barriers will also provide insight into answering one of the
research questions in this study.
Reziliency Theory
According to Belcourt-Dittloff (2006), the term reziliency is a play on words
combining reservation or the ‘rez’ with resiliency to specifically apply to American
82
Indian individuals and their ability to adapt and overcome adversity or trauma. Although
the term utilizes ‘rez’ to imply reservation, all Natives can experience reziliency or
resiliency because it means more than survival. Reziliency is growth, self-actualization,
and development of the self. Through this identity development, there is recognition of
how power and prejudice can produce discrimination or oppression. If a person can
obtain capital through adaptation, they will have more power to increase their
opportunity. Because traditionally people in power have not been Native, a non-Native
world-view permeates social institutions and is what the norm has been based on. The
Indigenous world-view is not the same so Native Americans have limited to no
opportunity within a system based on the norm. Reziliency is the connection between the
past, present, and future through adaptation and survival often in conjunction with some
type of resistance or resistant capital. It is implied that if a culture survives, it is resilient.
This means the culture has adapted and resisted in order to survive. For a culture to
survive, there must be some type of knowledge integrated so individuals and
communities can become successful in adapting without total assimilation. Statistically
significant reziliency factors found among American Indians include hope, social
support, coping, cultural and spiritual practices, ethnic pride or enculturation, and
communal identity (Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006). Reziliency is also included in the
theoretical framework.
83
Figure 9. Theoretical Framework Visual
Theoretical Framework Description
The theoretical framework combines TribalCRT, Reziliency Theory, and Cultural
Wealth Theory by incorporating access to diverse types of capital. The TribalCRT
component recognizes Native students experience social injustice and carry with them
historic trauma from which they have adapted and survived with important knowledge to
apply to future experiences. Community Cultural Wealth recognizes various forms of
capital students bring with them to the education system are valid and functional even
though they go unrecognized by the institution because of the deficit model. These forms
of capital are included within the theoretical framework and are placed in the Native
student’s backpack. Reziliency or resiliency contributes to this theoretical framework by
providing ways in which students cope and adapt to their oppressive conditions. These
resiliency characteristics are included in the Native student’s backpack.
84
According to Tribal Critical Race Theory, there is the recognition of historic
trauma, continued oppression, and social injustice within the connecting realms of
knowledge, culture, and power. The base realm is culture. Culture can be both a
stabilizing force and a mechanism for dynamic change. Native students bring their
cultural knowledge with them to college. The realm of knowledge is divided into three
areas: academic knowledge, cultural knowledge, and knowledge of survival. Power, the
third realm, pulls from both the realms of knowledge and culture. Concepts such as selfidentity, tradition, the ability to adapt and persevere, as well as the ability to share power
are included not only in the framework but within the Native student’s backpack.
When employed, Community Cultural Wealth can contribute to the success of
Native students. Success is achieved by meeting students’ needs through utilizing capital
when barriers are apparent. Native students have access to various forms of capital
within their repertoire. When certain types of capital are not recognized by the institution
because it utilizes the deficit model, Community Cultural Wealth does not serve as a
resource but is turned into a barrier by the institution. Therefore, students’ needs go
unmet and barriers are manifested, preventing success. This is unfortunate for Native
students and leads to one of the driving research questions: What are the academic and
personal needs of American Indian community college students?
Needs vary depending on the task at hand and the availability of resources. But
there is more to it because the relationship of resources to the environment must also be
considered in that what the student considers a resource may not be usable or recognized
85
as having value within an educational environment. This does not mean the student
cannot learn how to tap into the existing social capital or shared community resources
that can provide support, although this may also be limited depending on where the
student is from and how comfortable he/she is in attempting to access this resource. The
urban environment in which the college is located can impact available resources as well
as the campus climate or environment. Thus, students need navigational capital or
maneuvering skills to navigate through the barriers in the educational system. They also
need to draw on their reziliency/resiliency skills to cope with the oppressive conditions
and overcome any barriers they experience. This leads to the last two research questions:
what are the perceived barriers American Indian students face at the community college
level and what are the resiliency and persistence characteristics employed by American
Indian community college students contributing to student success? With the literature in
mind this, researcher developed the Student Success Equation.
Student Success Equation
(Needs Being Met – Barriers) + Resiliency Characteristics = Student Success
The Student Success Equation was created with the three primary research
questions in mind: 1) what are students’ needs, 2) what barriers do they experience, and
3) what resiliency characteristics do they employ and how do all three fit together to
equate to student success? Core barriers identified by using the theoretical framework
include: deficit model thinking, assimilation strategies employed by higher education,
86
lack of cultural competence or understanding, and ingrained institutionalized racism
stemming from colonialism.
Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure and Model of Student Retention
The reader may be wondering at this juncture why Tinto has not been utilized in
this study. Tinto is well known for his theory about student success and the
interdependence between student and institutional responsibility (Tinto, 1975). In
building on Spady’s (1970) model, which utilized Durkheim’s 1897 Theory of Suicide,
Tinto (1975) worked with Cullen (1973) to form the Theory of Student Departure to
explain why student attrition exists. In addition, he created a Model of Student
Retention, which can be utilized in determining student persistence. Tinto (1993) insisted
that for students to persist in their educational endeavors, they must integrate socially and
academically. This concept of integration has been highly criticized as promoting
assimilation (Tierney, 1992, 1993a, 1993b), especially as applied to ethnic minority
students.
Tinto is also working from a deficit model perspective, finding fault primarily in
the student and their culture, versus the education institution. Because the fundamental
core of Tinto’s (1975) model is the social and academic integration of the student for
retention to take place, students who do not assimilate are found to be at fault. This
deficit model blames the victim or the ethnically diverse student for not being able to
adapt to the education system. Even though Tinto (1975) has modified his theory to be
more inclusive and less assimilative (Tinto, 1987, 1993; Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000),
87
this researcher will not be able to use Tinto’s (1992) theory because it does not recognize
the social injustice permeating educational institutions. Tierney (1992), Attinasi (1989,
1994), and Kraemer (1997) have questioned the validity of Tinto’s (1993) model to
accurately represent the experiences of ethnic minority students because of the focus on
assimilation. Tinto is not used in this study.
Educational Research on College Student Success
The variables or components that make up student success are the primary focus
of this study. In reviewing student needs and barriers as well as reziliency techniques,
important information can be obtained to enact change, revise policy, and promote Native
student success. Previous research that has taken place on American Indian students in
higher education incorporating academic success follows.
The Institution and the Individual
One of the most notable scholars on American Indian college students and the
creator of Tribal Critical Race Theory is Brayboy. In Brayboy’s (1999) two-year
ethnographic study, seven American Indian undergraduate students at two Ivy League
Universities were called on to contribute to the research through their personal
experiences. Through the voices of the participants, Brayboy (1999) examined everyday
student experiences and found that each student developed their own strategies, academic
and social or adaptive responses, to daily situations (Brayboy, 1999, p. 257), clearly an
act of reziliency/resiliency. In addition, none of these students had assimilated. Instead
88
they used resistance strategies or resistance capital to, “subvert the structure and rules or
found professors and administrators who were willing to assist them maintaining their
cultural integrity while simultaneously being good students” (Brayboy, 1999, p. 258).
Resistant capital and reziliency are significant variables incorporated within the
theoretical framework of this researchers study. In addition, Brayboy (1999) disputed the
notion that all students will benefit from a “cookie-cutter” approach to retention. He
challenged institutional programs that have the same response to all students, to take into
account the differing needs of students, specifically Native students.
Brayboy’s (2005a) continued research went even further to focus on how
Indigenous students “obtain credentials from educational institutions and then use them
to benefit and help their tribes” (Lindley, 2009, p. 31). Not only were benefits taken into
account, but the costs or tradeoffs involved in pursuing social justice were considered.
Most importantly, Brayboy (2005a) cited resistance theories that focused on individuals
using their means to oppose assimilation. Resistance in this instance is a way in which
marginalized individuals can challenge the status quo and remain intact. In relationship
to Brayboy’s (2005a) research, resistance can take various forms including dropping out
of school, persevering until graduation, cooperating and appearing to conform or working
within the system to make change, and accommodating without assimilating. Brayboy
(2005a) recognized Yosso’s (2000) “resilient resistance,” capital or wealth which is a
process of “surviving and/or succeeding through the educational pipeline as a strategic
response to visual microaggressions” (p. 180).
89
Brayboy (2005a) defined power as the ability to survive based on the “capacity to
adapt and adjust to changing landscapes, times, ideas, circumstances, and situations” (p.
196). Individuals and communities can change educational, cultural, economic, and
political situations. Brayboy (2005a) relates this process to Deloria’s (1969, 1970) and
later Vizenor’s (1999) concept of “survivance,” which combines survival and resistance.
According to Brayboy (2005a), “the resistance aspects of survivance inherently call for
strategic accommodation as well as the development of processes that lead to community
developments” (p. 197). Power “lies in taking an active stance toward creating
something new” (Brayboy, 2005a, p. 197). Solorzano and Delgado Bernal (2001)
defined “transformational resistance” as “behavior that illustrates both a critique of
oppression and a desire for social justice” (p. 309). Brayboy (2005a) applied this
definition to American Indian communities by stating “the acquisition of credentials and
skills for the empowerment and liberation of American Indian communities” (p. 196)
work as an extension of transformational resistance. Brayboy (2005a) indicated the
students in his study and their families made many sacrifices in order to empower their
tribes, “personal and community liberation takes a heavy human toll” (Brayboy, 2005a, p.
207).
According to Villalpando (2004), it is the education system, not the race or
ethnicity of the student that has placed students at a disadvantage. Native students
attempt to negotiate a system that has already condemned them by assuming they have an
innate cultural deficiency. So then the primary reason Native students could never
90
achieve success is because they are Native. This harkens back to the Deficit Model.
Native students then must rely on their identity to empower them and fuel their desire to
achieve academic success in higher education (Ramirez, 2011; Villalpando, 2004). It is
critical to understand the institution impacts Native student success and that Critical Race
Theory, specifically TribalCRT provides the framework from which to view this
phenomena.
Castagno (2005) conducted ethnographic interviews of 12 American Indian
female students and held two focus groups at “Midwestern University” (p. 448). In
addition, she interviewed American Indian faculty and staff who worked with Indigenous
students, engaged in participant observation at events with Native students and conducted
document analysis of previous diversity issues at the university. American Indians
enrolled amounted to 0.5% of the total population of 40,000 students with Indigenous
women comprising 62% of the total Indians enrolled. Participants in Castagno’s (2005)
study faced persistent and pervasive racist attitudes and were often confronted with
stereotypes.
Castagno (2005) discussed how understanding racism as an individual act or
microaggression is very different from recognizing racist acts as part of a larger system.
When it is an individual act, education is the key and the few individuals who are racist
can unlearn their bigoted ways. But when racist acts are an accepted part of a larger
system, the systemic nature of racism becomes invisible and more difficult to separate
from policies and procedure. The impact is also greater especially when it comes to
91
campus climate and whether or not Native students feel welcome. This has a significant
impact on student success. A few years later Castagno teamed up with Lee in their
(2007) publication and looked at the contributing role of Native student identity in
relation to academic success. Persistence and identity are significant factors when
studying American Indian student success.
Viri’s (1989) case study of seven American Indian students at an urban
community college found that students viewed college as an opportunity to disassociate
themselves from stereotypes marginalizing American Indians. Although the students felt
they had this opportunity, they soon came to realize the community college culture
actually reinforced stereotypes and, even worse, discounted the students’ self-confidence
(White, 2007).
Akers (1990) used national data from the 1976 and 1978 Higher Education
General Information Survey to determine if there was a significant difference in success
rates for American Indian students based on type of institution. She found no statistically
significant differences but concluded that public colleges and universities had higher
success rates for American Indian students.
In Garrod and Larimore’s (1997) First Person, First Peoples, the personal
experiences of 13 American Indian students who graduated from Dartmouth University
are portrayed. Barriers that stood out were cultural confrontations and stereotypes by the
dominant culture, yet these students remained resilient. Clearly Resistance Capital
(Yosso, 2005) was at work. Discussed was the dissonance between home life and the
92
university as well as attacks on identity and self-esteem. Experiences with racism and
conflicts with the institution and even with American Indian peers were revealed within
this research (Garrod & Larimore, 1997). In the end, students who remained connected
with their tribes, home, and community and secure in their values and traditions were
successful (Garrod & Larimore, 1997). The effectiveness of retention programs were
discussed. Students in the study represented tribes east of the Mississippi (Garrod &
Larimore, 1997).
Persistence
Lindley (2009), who utilized CRT as a framework through which to view
persistence of Native students in higher education claimed recent research in American
Indian education used a deficit theoretical approach and has been limited in focus upon
elementary and secondary education (Deyhle & Swisher, 1997; McCarty, 2002).
American Indian students, especially in urban areas generally fit the profile for
attendance at community college. They are usually ineligible for admissions to a fouryear college or university out of high school because of low grades and the need to
master basic skills. In addition they may want to take their lower division courses at a
two-year community college to save money because the cost of enrollment is more
affordable and the geographic location may be closer to home, family, and community.
Krause (1987) determined a variety of factors assisted in persistence and were
significant in predicting graduation rates. In studying American Indians students enrolled
in the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) at the University of Washington, Krause
93
(1987) concluded that high school grade point average, first-quarter grades, and
membership in the EOP program were significant predictors of student success (White,
2007).
Whitehorse (1992) used mixed methods to study the relationship between
institutional character and student cultural identification to determine if they were
significant in predicting American Indian student persistence at Northern Arizona
University. He found that congruence between these two variables was indicative of
student persistence. Most important to this study was the degree to which the institution
was perceived to be supportive and committed to American Indian student biculturalism
(White, 2007; Whitehorse, 1992).
In White’s (2007) study of persistence and graduation rates of Native American
students in postsecondary education, he found, in using data obtained through the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), significant differences in
enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates based on institutional characteristics. White
(2007) also used student-level data obtained from the National Postsecondary Student
Aid Study 1995-96 and the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 19962001 confirming findings from the IPEDS analysis. Additional findings in White’s
(2007) study include attendance and enrollment varies based on geographic region;
American Indian students enrolled in tribal colleges had significantly lower transfer out
rates than peers enrolled at mainstream institutions of higher education (with
approximately half the rate of non-tribal colleges); tribal colleges awarded more total
94
degrees to American Indian students except for research universities; and tribal colleges
awarded more degrees at the less than associate’s degree and associate’s degree level
than any other institution (predictable given that tribal colleges’ highest degree level is
associates). Institutional characteristics found to affect persistence to graduation include
Geographic region, degree of urbanization, Carnegie Classification, institutional
level, institutional control, institutional affiliation, Historically Black College or
University (HBCU) status, Tribal college status, cost, size, average standardized
test score (ACT or SAT), student library services, financial aid program
participation, and the general ethnic and racial composition of the student body.
(White, 2007, p. 146)
American Indian students did not experience high rates of persistence at larger, less
urban, low-cost, two-year publically controlled institutions (White, 2007). A major
finding of White’s (2007) study was that tribal college success was not supported within
the data examined.
Retention
Within the literature written about Native Americans by non-Natives and Native
scholars alike, several factors seem to stand out as predictors of college student success
or barriers. Gilbert (2000), Powless (2008), and Lindley (2009) identified eight causal
factors faced by Native American students in higher education, which contributed to low
retention rates: low socioeconomic status and lack of funding, preparation for
postsecondary education, student and parent motivation, lack of well trained teachers and
administrators, differences in learning styles for American Indian students, low selfesteem, and, most importantly, the cultural differences between home culture and the
school (Brayboy, 1999; 2005a, 2005b; Castagno, 2005; Castagno & Lee, 2007; Garrod &
95
Larrimore, 1997; Guillory, 2002, 2008; Huffman, 1999, 2001, 2008; McAfee, 1997,
2000; Napier, 1995; Tierney, 1992; Waterman, 2004, 2007). As Native students face
these eight causal factors, they often feel overwhelmed and marginalized, which can lead
to attrition (Cole & Denzine, 2004; La Boone, 2006).
Degree statistics in McAfee’s (2000) study are criticized as being unreliable
because a majority of Indigenous college students step out at least one time in their
college careers. McAfee (1997) argued that stepping out, like stopping out versus
dropping out, more precisely explains the Indigenous college student experience in that
students who ultimately graduate are able to find the necessary stepping stones to
navigate the system even though they leave the institution for a period of time. This does
not mean they have given up on higher education, nor have these students left for good.
Stepping out implied continuation at a later date (McAfee, 2000). McAfee (1997, 2000)
was clearly discussing Navigational Capital (Yosso, 2005). In McAfee’s (2000) study,
out of 76 students affiliated with 29 tribes interviewed, 27 were step-outs identified as
American Indian students who were science, engineering, math, or business majors no
longer enrolled; 16 students had earned a bachelors degree in science, engineering, math,
or business. Significant factors or the most important stepping stones, according to
McAfee (1997, 2000), were cultural identity, family support, and continued community
connection, motivation, and financial resources (Lindley, 2009).
Traditional retention theory (student involvement, change, departure, and
institutional adaptation) was utilized by Guillory (2002; 2008) as the focus of his study
96
on persistence factors and barriers for American Indian students. Guillory (2002)
conducted focus groups with 30 American Indian students and interviewed administrators
at Washington State University, University of Idaho, and Montana State University. He
asked Native American students, presidents, and faculty at each of the institutions, as
well as state board of higher education representatives to name and discuss in detail the
three or four most important factors leading to the persistence of American Indian
students and the three or four barriers that needed to be overcome by American Indian
students trying to obtain academic success.
In comparing the responses of the American Indian students to the representatives
of the institution, Guillory (2002) found inconsistency because the students identified
family, on-campus support, and giving back to tribal communities on the reservation as
persistence factors impacting them. In fact, Guillory and Wolverton (2008) noted family
(nuclear or extended) was the most significant persistence factor in that Native students
were willing to endure many hardships including an unwelcoming environment,
inadequate financial support, and lack of or no academic preparation in order to succeed
and bring hope for a better life for their families. Guillory observed Native students
would put their family and community before themselves, and this aligned with what
Deloria and Wildcat (2001) discussed in their work on American Indian communities,
revealing an interconnection and respect between all living things for the whole to
survive. This is a very important concept for college and university administrators to
understand in that the survival of the individual is interdependent with the family and
97
community and one must sacrifice for the greater good. The Native concept of family is
different than the White, middle-class nuclear family concept. This coincides with the
cooperation versus competition ideology. When one cooperates, one survives and
thrives. When a person is constantly competing, they lose sight of the greater good,
which essentially includes them.
In Guillory’s (2002) study, administrators in institutes of higher education
identified only two persistence factors including adequate financial support and academic
programs tailored to meet American Indian student needs (Lindley, 2009). Both of these
factors are institutionally focused. One must rely on the system of education to assess
these factors internally and make changes as needed which may be problematic in that
they differ so much from what students themselves identify as factors contributing to
their success or those causing barriers. Guillory (2002) points out that the discrepancy
between what is important for students and the perceptions of the institutional
representatives “is further exacerbated by a disconnect between state and institutional
policy” (Guillory, 2002, p. vi). Guillory and Wolverton (2008) recommended the use of
the Family Education Model (FEM) (HeavyRunner & DeCelles, 2002) to incorporate
family and tribal community as “necessary constituents in the educational process and
success of American Indian students” (Lindley, 2009, p. 35).
In a qualitative study by Waterman (2004, 2007), 12 Haudenosaunee Tribal
college graduates, eight female and four male, were interviewed about their college
experience. A majority of the Native students were stop outs as defined by Tinto (1987),
98
similar to McAfee’s (1997, 2000) step-out. Average length of time until degree
completion was eight years, with six graduating within four years (Lindley, 2009). Only
the men in the study experienced mentoring. Although all students noted they had
changed significantly, Waterman (2007) found student experience did not support Tinto’s
(1987) theory of college student integration. While participants were academically
engaged, they were able to preserve cultural integrity (Deyhle, 1995) by maintaining their
strong supportive connection to their families and communities. Waterman (2007)
portrayed these students as having a “double curriculum: their academic program [on the
one hand] and…participating in Haudenosaunee ceremonies and traditions [on the other]”
(p. 35).
Success and Barriers
Oosahwe’s (2008) phenomenological study at a Midwestern university on Native
American students focused on narratives of academic success and strategies to overcome
obstacles. Focus groups, one-on-one interviews, and journaling was used with 13
undergraduate Native students. Emergent themes included motivation factors, coping
skills, the definition of student success, and strategies used for academic success.
In Baxter’s (2009) mixed methods study on Native American students enrolled at
San Juan College located in New Mexico in the fall of 2003 through spring 2006
semesters, key barriers impacting Native American student academic performance were
discussed. The barriers that may lead to attrition included “lack of adequate financial
support, perceived racial prejudice, differences in customs and values, and teaching
99
styles” (Baxter, 2009, p. 63). In addition, Baxter (2009) revealed cultural differences that
block learning associated with a curriculum that does not value or even mention the
Native American experience, conflict between cultural world-views, and formal teaching
and communication methods. Other variables that may serve as barriers to success
include being a first-generation college student, working, being a single parent, needing
affordable daycare, taking classes part-time, and feeling less connected to the college
(Baxter, 2009).
Significant Variables
In the above section, I reviewed the empirical literature relative to educating the
American Indian student in general and in particular higher education. In sum, the
factors that stand out in the research include family involvement and support, community
involvement and support, pre-college academic experience in grades K-12, peer/mentor
relationships, institutional resources/financial support, counseling, experiences with
faculty and coursework, and institutional commitment and support. These factors are
included in this study and discussed further.
Family Involvement and Support
Time and again, students claim family support is integral to their decision to
attend and remain in college (Baxter, 2009). A number of studies have identified family
support as a major success factor for American Indian students (Brown & Robinson
Kurpius, 1997; Dodd et al., 1995; Falk & Aitken, 1984; Lin, LaCounte, & Eder, 1988;
100
Tierney, 1995). Families are the support system reinforcing and encouraging individual
members to stay in school. Families often realize that a higher education will not only
help the individual but there is a perception that the education of one individual could lift
the entire family out of poverty and provide better opportunities, a better life for
everyone. Many students depend on their families for financial assistance, housing,
transportation, and childcare (Baxter, 2009). Family support can also enhance a students’
productivity (Schmidtke, 2008). “Native students may receive total support from the
community, tribal leaders, members, family and friends and are the driving force for
achievement” (Belgarde & Lore, 2003, p. 177; Jackson and Smith 2001, p. 2; Rindonel,
1988, p. 5).
One important aspect of family support is the educational background of family
members, especially their college experiences (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Dodd
et al., 1995; Jackson & Smith, 2001). Family members with college degrees help
students develop a positive attitude toward college. This can lead to increased career
maturity, self-confidence, and motivation (Jackson & Smith, 2001; Wentzlaff & Brewer,
1996). Family members with college experience serve as role models to show Native
youth that a college education can be achieved and it is worth it (Brown & Robinson
Kurpius, 1997; Jackson & Smith, 2001).
Without these role models, families can still help their children beginning in
elementary school and up through high school. Familial expectations of children doing
well academically help reinforce the child’s desire to excel. Families can even participate
101
in choosing a desired school and specific courses to help their child get started on their
path to college (Schmidtke, 2008). Family members who have no college experience of
their own can become involved and talk about college with the school counselor; they can
speak with college counselors and go with their children to visit college campuses
(Schmidtke, 2008). In addition, friends and extended family may also serve as a role
model who could lend support (Tierney, 1995). Jackson and Smith (2001) claimed a
father’s encouragement to attend college can be connected to a positive campus
experience. According to Brown and Robinson Kurpius (1997), mothers and
grandmothers have a positive influence on retention.
Community Involvement and Support
Successful student programs often link the student to the community (Kirkness &
Barnhardt, 1991). Through this effort, both the student and the community benefit. The
student receives hands-on experience and is introduced into the community where they
can make future career connections. The community also benefits from volunteer labor
and has the opportunity to make connections to a future employee. Through this process,
businesses and organizations can view the actual product of the education system and
voice their concerns or their amazement about the skills the student has learned. Hatch
(1992) connected student success and motivation with employment opportunities and
community development. By connecting with the external community, business
representatives can have a say in the skills future employees will need so students can
102
find employment after graduation. This is especially true for Native students seeking to
become employed with their tribes (Schmidtke, 2008).
Pre-college Student Experience
Pre-college programs assist in preparing students for the college experience
(James, 1992; Schmidtke, 2008). These programs get students thinking about college
(Schmidtke, 2008). They also help students develop career plans and academic and
social skills they will need to be successful in college (Falk & Aitken, 1984; Pavel &
Padilla, 1993; Schmidtke, 2008). These programs are available through counseling at the
local high school, through summer and fall orientation programs put on by the college
and through pre-college workshops designed to orient the student for the first semester
(Falk & Aitken, 1984; Kleinfeld, Cooper, & Kyle, 1987; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995;
Schmidtke, 2008). Once the student is enrolled, many support services can help with the
student feeling welcome within the new academic and social environment (Schmidtke,
2008). Academic support can also come in the form of tutoring, study skills classes, and
study groups (Schmidtke, 2008). The ultimate goal is to retain students by reemphasizing the benefits of college (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Falk & Aitken,
1984; Hoover & Jacobs, 1992; Jackson & Smith, 2001; Kleinfeld et al., 1987;
Pewewardy & Frey, 2004; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995; Schmidtke, 2008).
103
Peer/Mentor Relationships
When students create relationships at college, they help them feel more at home
(Huffman, 2001), and this comfort translates to retention. It is expected professors will
act as mentors to their students in part to recruit majors to the discipline but also to
promote student success rates (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Pavel & Padilla,
1993). Oftentimes, faculty who develop mentoring relationships with their students serve
as an extended family, which also contributes to student retention (HeavyRunner &
DeCelles, 2002). When faculty become role models, they reinforce a supportive
environment (Jackson & Smith, 2001; James, 1992; Tate & Schwartz, 1993). Anyone
including faculty, staff, administrators, and peers can be mentors, according to Tierney
(1995). But Reyhner and Dodd (1995) recommended mentors have some type of
connection to the student, either they are from the same discipline, they have similar
interests, or they share the same or similar cultural backgrounds. In fact, several authors
reinforce hiring American Indian faculty and staff to provide the Native student with
informed and adequate support (Falk & Aitken, 1984; Kleinfeld et al., 1987; O’Brien,
1990; Pavel & Padilla, 1993; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995).
Peer mentoring is important to student retention and success (Hoover & Jacobs,
1992). Peer support helps Native students deal with conflict, improve feelings of
belonging, reinforce and clarify identity, and understand that their values, beliefs, and
ways of learning and thinking are a burden but an asset to critical thinking and problem
solving (Schmidtke, 2008; Tate & Schwartz, 1993). As stated earlier, peer mentoring can
104
take place in many ways; tutoring, study groups, (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997),
student centers (Cole & Denzine, 2002), and student organizations (Reyhner & Dodd,
1995) can all offer peer support (Schmidtke, 2008). Peer groups create a sense of
community, “help students deal with feelings of isolation and alienation, and can offer
specific advice on study skills or other academic matters” (Schmidtke, 2008, p. 111).
Mentoring contributes to the retention of minority students (Jacobi, 1991; Pope,
2002). Central to Native student success are American Indian faculty and administrators
(Schmidtke, 2008). These mentors reinforce student self-esteem, which contributes to
their success (Schmidtke, 2008). Native faculty, staff, and administrators are leaders and
stakeholders in student success who assist in connecting the student to the professional
community (Schmidtke, 2008). Native educators and administrators are needed to
mentor Indigenous students to become leaders in their tribal communities (Gilbert, 2000;
Huffman, 2001).
Institutional Resources/Financial Aid
Financial aid is greatly needed by most American Indian students because a
majority of American Indian youth experience poverty (Belgrade & Lore, 2003; Gilbert,
2000; Kerbo, 1981; Powless, 2008). Financial aid allows for access and opportunity to
achieve academic goals (Cabrera, Nora, & Castañeda, 1993; Cabrera, Stampen, &
Hansen, 1990; Nora, 2003; Ramirez, 2011; Stampen & Cabrera, 1988). According to
Johnson and Smith (2001):
105
While they can find funding for tuition, room and board, books, etc., there is no
source of money for emergencies, socializing, or incidentals. They cannot request
a little more from their families, as their families may have nothing to offer. (p.
45)
Native American families generally experience poverty at higher levels than the average
person in the United States. Academic achievement is dependent upon many variables
and funding or financial aid is one of those variables that has a significant impact.
Adequate funding can alleviate stress about paying rent and for much needed school
supplies. It is imperative financial aid be on time and accurate.
Counseling
Counseling services are one of the most important contributors to student success,
if counselors are trained appropriately (Cole & Denzine, 2002; Kleinfeld et al., 1987).
Counselors can serve as mentors, too, if they are willing to learn about the various and
unique cultures of the students they serve, specifically Native students. To generalize all
Natives as having one culture is problematic and can break any trust that has been built
with a student (Hornett, 1989; Huffman, 2001; Pavel & Padilla, 1993). Counselors
should be prepared to assist students in choosing a program of study and in suggesting
specific courses where they believe the student will thrive and possibly find peer support
(Schmidtke, 2008). Counselors can also help students understand the policies and
procedures of the institution and be ready to provide referrals to a variety of services that
can support students (HeavyRunner & DeCelles, 2002; Hornett, 1989; James, 1992;
Kleinfeld et al., 1987; Ortiz & HeavyRunner, 2003; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995).
106
Generally, American Indian students come from high schools with limited to no
college preparatory courses, no pre-college admission programs and no financial aid
counseling. Besides inadequate guidance and counseling, American Indian students and
their families have limited information about the college admissions process. It is no
wonder the community college counselor plays a very critical role in providing accurate
information to students and their parents. The matriculation process includes academic,
career, and personal counseling, registration assistance, and assessments in writing,
reading, and math to adequately place students in the courses they need.
Curriculum
According to Connelly, He, and Phillion (2008), the movement toward culturally
relevant instruction began in the 1960s with the development of Ethnic Studies programs
and bilingual education. These movements led to a 1970s concept that curriculum should
be multicultural in nature, addressing equity and social justice issues to improve the
education of children who had been disenfranchised. Some educators believed this
change in curriculum meant an introduction of “colorblindness.” According to Nieto
(2003), this concept upholds historic amnesia and “fails to recognize the way race has
historically, systematically and institutionally been used to oppress certain groups….and
masks the persistent and deep entrenchment of racial inequality” (Nieto et al., 2008, p.
181). Questions arose about the nature of curriculum (Apple, 2004). Who wrote it?
What knowledge were they using? Why was it organized in one specific way? Could it
107
be taught another way? A curriculum revolution was underway. There arose a notion
that students were not blank slates meant for the “banking method” of instruction (Freire,
2000). Students brought with them information and funds of knowledge (Moll et al.,
1992). They were experts about their environments, and they had experienced oppression
first hand (Nieto, et. al., 2008).
In reviewing curriculum through a social justice and equity lens, one can
anticipate the possible negative impact stereotypical information will have on students.
Curriculum must be viewed within a cultural context to see how it pertains to the lives of
students. This directly relates to best practices pedagogy and what pertinent information
students take with them that reflects and relates to their personal experiences. When
curriculum perpetuates a stereotypical perspective, thus reinforcing the deficit model,
underrepresented students are not included as pertinent contributing members of
academia, thereby reinforcing othering and/or making the group invisible. Furthermore
when a humanistic curriculum is employed, it is ever changing and complex. This type
of fluidity allows for the influx of multicultural curriculum and reflection or praxis to
understand how the environment impacts education. In addition, links to identity,
community, and diversity can be made to better understand how multicultural education
or cultural competency education has a beneficial impact.
When discussing curriculum, colleges must commit to incorporating culturally
relevant pedagogy as part of their mission (Tierney, 1995). Once this has been
accomplished, they can address integrating diversity within the curriculum by adding an
108
Indigenous perspective to all courses and all disciplines. Old and new programs alike
should be designed with Indigenous students in mind (Pewewardy & Frey, 2004).
According to Geneva Smitherman-Donaldson and Teun A. van Dijk (1988),
language and discourse play critical roles in the reproduction and perpetuation of
oppression. They argue the roots of oppression are firmly embedded in opinions and
attitudes shaped by society’s elites and mediated through “socialization networks, such as
schools, and in information-disseminating institutions, such a s the mass media” (as cited
in Connelly et al., 2008, p. 188). Whether through television programs, new reports,
radio talk shows, magazines, textbooks, or novels, “the expression, enactment, and
legitimization of racism in society takes place…at a symbolic level” in “a variety of
communicative contexts and in various types of talk and text” (as cited in Connelly et al.,
2008, p. 188).
Today equity in education has not been completely realized because even though
a multicultural curriculum has been implemented, the content and context have been
mitigated to the point where it is no longer relevant and meaningful. Nieto et. al. (2008),
argue for a new way of creating curriculum by incorporating community, students,
teachers, theory and ideologies. A critical analysis of power is called for when initiating
culturally relevant curriculum (Banks, 2004b; Connelly et al., 2008; Gay, 2004; Grant,
Elsbree, & Fondrie, 2004; Neito & Bode, 2008).
109
Professors
Studies have time and again shown that professors impact student success (Cole
& Denzine, 2002; Dodd et al., 1995; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995). Professors can motivate
students and give advice on how to access resources on campus. Professors have great
influence on student perceptions of the campus climate, whether or not it is a racist
environment and no matter how they see themselves in relation to this, as victims of
discrimination or as empowered to resist the oppression (Brown & Robinson Kurpius,
1997; Hornett, 1989). Professors can be culturally sensitive and apply this to their
teaching style to reach more students. But often Professors fall prey to limited time and
resources. Through this they begin to reduce curriculum to the simplest concepts and in
so doing can create categories that, “keep us from seeing the students before us” (Smith
& Wilhelm, 2002, p. 9). This is problematic but, fortunately, there are evaluations put
into place, a way for students to be heard. All they need to do is listen and through their
academic freedom, they have the ability and right to make changes to their teaching style
and curriculum so it may reflect the most recent developments in the discipline.
Conclusion
Eurocentric ideology promoting the individual and productivity has become the
basis for educational systems in the United States, leaving no room for Indigenous
thought or perspective. Institutes of education promote and reinforce assimilation,
requiring a complete transformation of Natives, which serves as a reminder of
110
colonization and historic trauma. Examining early experiences of Natives with boarding
schools and higher education, it is evident American Indians have suffered a great
injustice that has yet to be remedied.
Previous research has provided a starting point where new scholarly activity can
flourish. Factors impacting American Indian community college student success are
within reach. The variables considered in this study include precollege academic
preparation, financial support, family support, student motivation, peer mentor
relationships, counseling, a supportive and involved faculty, institutional commitment,
and support for Indian students and their world views, maintaining an active presence in
home communities and cultural ceremonies (Aiken & Falk, 1984; Astin, 1982; Barnhardt,
1994; Belcourt-Dittloff, 2006; Brown, 1995; Cole & Denzine, 2002; Falk & Aitken,
1984; Huffman, 2001; Huffman et al., 1986; Lin, 1990; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995, Starks,
2010). In addition, an equation has been created that may be applied to reveal strategies
for Native student success. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology utilized in this study to
identify factors serving as barriers, needs and resiliency characteristics.
111
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Humankind has not woven the web of life.
We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
All things are bound together.
All things connect.
Chief Seattle, 1854
Chapter 3 describes the research design, including the role of the researcher, and a
detailed description of the context, setting, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and
analysis. The purpose of this study was to determine the needs, as well as the perceived
barriers, and resiliency characteristics that impact the success of American Indian
community college students at Sacramento City College. This study identifies resilient
forces in Native students’ lives and gathers student opinions about barriers experienced,
needs, and strategies utilized in attempts to obtain academic success.
Research Questions
The methodology described in this chapter was used to collect data to answer the
following research questions:

Research question #1: What are the academic and personal needs of American
Indian community college students?

Research question #2: What are the perceived barriers that American Indian
students face at the community college level?
112

Research question #3: What are the resiliency and persistence characteristics
employed by American Indian community college students contributing to
student success?
Research Design
Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) define four reasons to use mixed-methods, as
opposed to a solely qualitative or quantitative design. They explained researchers use the
mixed-method design to (1) triangulate; (2) embed the design; (3) explain the design; and
(4) explore the design. Mixed methods are used in this study to triangulate the data
gathered through the survey results and coded focus group transcriptions. The use of a
survey allowed for a breadth of quantitative information while the focus group portion
provided the depth of student “experiences and perspectives” (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003) or
a balance with qualitative information. A mixed-method approach allowed for in-depth,
multilayered analysis while at the same time provided an opportunity for research
participants to have a voice and contribute meaning.
The research questions are further explored through both quantitative and
qualitative methods. Quantitative data is derived from the survey (full survey is included
in Appendix A). The quantitative section of this study provides for a statistical
correlation analysis of the factors impacting Native students academic success, as
demonstrated in the literature. A Pearson Correlation Coefficient analysis was used to
determine the significance of the relationship among the variables. The qualitative
113
section allowed for the voice of the Native student to be heard through three focus
groups. Coding strategies related to the research questions along with the theoretical
framework. The equation derived from the research questions as well. The merger
between the theoretical concepts allowed for the researcher to delve deeper into students’
perceptions and experiences to provide a broader and more encompassing understanding
of the data. Both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed simultaneously to look
for patterns in the data and triangulate results.
This study examined the needs barriers and resiliency characteristics as factors impacting
Native students success. Because student success for the purposes of this study has been
defined as meeting the needs, eliminating the barriers and reinforcing the resiliency
characteristics of students working toward the completion of a desired academic goal
several variables were considered that are discussed within the Instrument section.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher is a current American Indian adjunct professor who teaches
Anthropology and Native American Studies courses at Sacramento City College. The
researcher is aware that this could present a conflict of interest because of the
development of mentoring relationships between various students and the professor. The
participants may have wanted to respond in a way that would impact their professor and
mentor, when their true feelings might have differed. To alleviate this potential conflict
of interest, the researcher clearly explained to the participants that their honest responses
114
not only aided in the research, but were appreciated. In addition, there was no incentive,
nor positive outcome of any response, and no response was considered “correct.” This
information was provided on the survey consent form (see Appendix B).
Setting
The setting for this study was Sacramento City College (SCC), an urban
community college located in Sacramento, California. Sacramento City College was
founded in 1916, is the seventh oldest public community college in California, and is the
oldest institution of higher learning in Sacramento (Sacramento City College, 2007). As
one of four sister colleges within the Los Rios Community College District, SCC is
recognized by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and is accredited
by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) (Jeffery, 2009).
The mission of Sacramento City College incorporates terms such as open-access
and diversity, specifically in the context of commitment and support relating to the needs
of students (Sacramento City College Catalog, 2009-2010). The open access concept was
based on California’s Master Plan for Higher Education, which divided students between
the community college system, the four-year state colleges where students could receive
Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, and the four-year university system where they could
work toward their Master’s and Doctorate degrees. The Master Plan was developed in
the 1960s (Esch, 2009) to allow students the opportunity to achieve success along with a
115
good job and a living wage. Times have changed and, according to Dr. Grabriner (Esch,
2009), the plan was designed with an entirely different population in mind and with a
state budget that could support a three-tier system.
Today, California’s population is made up of a more diverse group, largely Latino
and other minority groups that have been consistently disenfranchised by the education
system (Contreras & Gándara, 2009). With a shift in the labor market for highly
educated workers, there is a greater need for more students to graduate with a college
degree (Esch, 2009). Sacramento’s population estimate is approximately 500,000 people
with a Native American Indian population of approximately 1.1%.
Sacramento City College serves a very diverse student population of
approximately 25,000 with a Native American Indian (identified as Native American
only) student population of approximately 0.7%. SCC is known for being one of the
most diverse campuses in Sacramento and has taken an innovative approach in terms of
providing equal and open access to education by providing low enrollment fees coupled
with evening, weekend, and online classes to accommodate enrollment growth. During
times of budgetary crisis, it becomes difficult at best to maintain an open-door policy in
terms of enrollment, especially with diminished resources and more and more students
need basic skills education. Part of the issue at hand is that community colleges have
permeable boundaries (Bess & Dee, 2008). Because of the interdependence between the
community college and the community, boundaries need to be permeable for the college
116
to meet the needs of the students and community. But this can lead to difficulties,
especially when there are limited resources.
With two off-campus sites (West Sacramento and Davis), Sacramento City
College has grown by at least 2.6% (Yen, 2009) culminating in an increase in enrollment
by more than 1,000 students per year between 2005 and 2009 (Sacramento City College
Planning, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness Office, 2009). According to
Chancellor Harris (2008), the weak economy coupled with increased unemployment and
higher tuition at four-year universities has led to a greater demand for classes at the
community college level.
It is generally understood that a majority of minority students have been
disenfranchised due to racism, classism, and/or sexism, as well as previous educational
experiences, and they have specific needs when they arrive at the community college
level (Perry, Rosin, Morgan, Woodward, and Bahr, 2010). It is the norm for these
students to need basic skills or remedial education (Perry et al., 2010). In response to
student needs, Sacramento City College has developed certain programs whose missions
are to increase student success.
117
Table 2
Programs at Sacramento City College
Extended
Opportunity
Program and
Services or EOPS
Cooperative
Agencies
Resources for
Education or
CARE
BEACON PAL
CalWORKs
MESA
Puente
RISE
The Extended Opportunity Program and Services (EOPS) is an
organization that assists first-time, first-generation,
economically disadvantaged students who historically would
not have attended college (Sacramento City College [SCC],
2012).
Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education or CARE is a
supplemental program to EOPS that provides additional support
and services to students who are single parents (SCC, 2010b).
BEACON PAL is a Peer Assisted Learning Program designed
to provide collaborative learning (SCC, n.d.a).
CalWORKs, which stands for California Work Opportunity &
Responsibility to Kids, is a state-funded welfare to work
program designed to help individuals on public assistance
become self-sufficient (SCC, 2010a).
MESA assists educationally and financially disadvantaged
students majoring in math, engineering, or science transfer to
four-year colleges and universities. The program emphasizes
collaborative study and support to attain high academic
achievement.
Puente, which is a statewide program administered by the
University of California Office of the President, is designed
specifically to meet the needs of Mexican American/Latino
students transferring to four year colleges and universities
(SCC, n.d.c).
RISE, which stands for Respect, Integrity, Self Determination
and Education, is a program designed to fill the gaps students
experience when attending college the first time, through
personalized counseling, tutoring services, a book loan program,
and a variety of other services designed to meet the needs of
students who feel disenfranchised or specifically challenged in
the college environment (SCC, n.d.b).
118
The programs are created and maintained to assist minority students in overcoming the
achievement gap but none have been directly created with the needs of American Indian
students in mind.
The Native-only Student Population at Sacramento City College
Data requested from and provided by the Planning Research and Institutional
Effectiveness (PRIE) Office at Sacramento City College includes information on students
who identified as Native American only (not mixed race and no identification with any
other racial/ethnic groups) for fall 2004-Spring 2011 (End of Semester data). It was
recommended by the PRIE Office researchers to use end-of-semester data because they
capture late-start classes. End-of-semester data provide information about students who
received a transcription notation (A, B, C, D, F, Pass, No Pass, Incomplete, Withdraw) in
the course. In addition, it should be noted that because ethnic or racial group definitions
changed in 2009 and another category, Multi-Race, was added to the Race/Ethnicity
section of the application, data on students of mixed race could not be provided
consistently across years. Thus, Native American students who claimed more than one
racial/ethnic group were not included in this data.
The Native-only student population demographics at Sacramento City College
reveal a very small population of students who claim to be Native American only and not
part of any other ethnic group. It is fairly consistent that fall semester enrollment
119
numbers for students who claim to be Native American only are higher than spring
semester numbers except between fall 2010 and Spring 2011.
Table 3
Native American-only Student Population End-of-Semester Enrollment (PRIE Office at
SCC)
Semester
Native
Percent
Total
American only
Population
Fall 2004
261
1.2
21609
Spring 2005
249
1.2
20494
Fall 2005
252
1.2
21767
Spring 2006
239
1.2
20491
Fall 2006
248
1.1
22768
Spring 2007
241
1.1
21863
Fall 2007
260
1.1
24602
Spring 2008
225
1.0
22936
Fall 2008
261
1.0
25788
Spring 2009
240
1.0
24957
Fall 2009*
205
0.8
27028
Spring 2010
182
0.7
25206
Fall 2010
165
0.7
24781
Spring 2011
168
0.7
24279
*First semester with added Multi-Race as a category
The chart reveals a somewhat steady percentage rate of Native students over three
to four semesters, even though the total population of all students fluctuates. But there
appears to be a noticeable decline occurring since fall 2009. The actual numbers of these
same Native students claiming Native American-only as their race/ethnic identity
fluctuates across the board, with the highest numbers being 261 and the lowest being 168.
Note the numbers only sharply decrease when the Multi-Race category is added to the
application in fall 2009, then again in spring 2010, and once more in fall 2010 with a
120
small rise of three students in spring 2011. It is unknown to this researcher if the MultiRace category affected these numbers or if there was an actual decline in Native students
who identified as Native American-only during the fall 2009-fall 2010 semesters. The
PRIE Office at SCC suggested the initial decline in those checking “Native American”
only was the result of the addition of the changes in how the data were collected
beginning in 2009.
The degree in declared major chart reveals a steady increase in the number of
Native American-only students who obtained a degree in their declared major within the
specified academic year when comparing successive years. Although the frequency or
number of students who obtain their declared major within the academic year increases
year by year, the percentage dips in 2007-2008 due to the overall total number of students
increasing to 38 with only 18 obtaining their degree in their declared major for that year.
Not provided is the number of semesters lapsed prior to degree attainment.
Table 4
Degree in Declared Major
Academic Year Frequency Total Percent
Yes
Degrees
2004-2005
8
19
42.1
2005-2006
9
17
52.9
2006-2007
14
25
56.0
2007-2008
18
38
47.4
2008-2009
24
39
61.5
2009-2010
37
59
62.7
121
Even though a student’s educational goal may change throughout their tenure at
the college, documenting educational goals within the year is significant. The
educational goal of Native students who selected Native American only as their
racial/ethnic group, utilizing EOS data, revealed a trend that seemed to indicate the
primary educational goal for Native students was to transfer to a four-year college or
university after obtaining their AA/AS degree. The next category, transfer to a four-year
college or university without an AA/AS degree is consistently lower than transferring
after earning an AA/AS degree but generally higher than earning an AA/AS degree with
no transfer, with the exception of fall 2006, spring 2009, fall 2009, fall 2010, and spring
2011. In fall 2008, the numbers were the same. The undecided category begins in fall
2004 with the highest number of 41 students. Although this number drops significantly
within the next semester to 15, it elevates the following semester to 22 students. There is
no perceivable pattern except from spring 2007 the numbers continuously reduce each
semester dropping to the lowest in spring 2010 and spring 2011 to seven students being
undecided.
The unit load a student carries is significant because it relates to a number of
variables, including but not limited to: affordability, scheduling (students may have to
juggle work with childcare), type of classes being taken (some classes require more study
time than others), and student ability to work on a certain number of classes at the same
time (may also be based on their study habits, needs, and motivation). Regardless of the
reason, patterns in unit load can tell us a lot about a student population.
122
The trend developing from fall 2004 to spring 2006 (four semesters) is that a
majority of Native-only students were taking between 6 and 11.99 units. In fall 2006, the
majority of Native-only students were taking fewer than six units but this was due to a
slight margin increase of three students taking 5.99 or fewer units. In spring 2007, the
units jumped again to between 6 and 11.99, but fell once more and remained at fewer
than six units for two semesters, fall 2007 and spring 2008. From fall 2008 to fall 2009
(three semesters), the unit load increased again to between 6 and 11.99, reducing to fewer
than six units in spring 2010. Fall 2010 to spring 2011 unit load increased again to
between 6 and 11.99. In addition, a majority of Native-only students attend college parttime.
More information can be obtained from reviewing persistence patterns.
Persistence patterns documenting the groups of the same students attending from one
semester or one year to the next are available. This is the case for Native American-only
students (see Table 5).
Table 5
Fall to Spring and Fall to Fall Persistence Rates of Native-only Students
Fall to Spring
Terms
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
Percent
Returned
55.6
56.7
58.5
52.7
53.3
60.5
66.1
Fall to Fall
Terms
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Percent
Returned
39.1
44.8
39.1
38.5
37.5
38.5
123
With the exception of a drop in fall to spring term 2007-2008, an approximate
five-point drop between fall to fall 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, and consistent drops
through fall to fall terms 2008-2009, there is a trend that the percentage of Native-only
students returning from fall to spring semesters was increasing. Fall to fall term
persistence is varied with the highest rate of 44.8% occurring in 2005-2006. A rate of
39.1 occurs in fall to fall persistence numbers in 2004-2005 and again in 2006-2007. A
lower rate of 38.5 is also significant in the years 2007-2008 and again in 2009-2010. The
lowest rate of return occurred in 2008-2009 with a 37.5%. The overall patterns that
emerge from this data are that the return rates are higher between fall and spring
semesters compared to fall to fall persistence patterns.
Sample
The sample population for the survey was 45 self-identified American Indian
(identified as Native-only or in conjunction with other ethnic groups), community college
students, aged 18 or older who stated they were taking or at least had completed a
minimum of three units at a community college, tribal college, or junior college. Fortythree out of 45 students indicated they were enrolled at Sacramento City College at the
time they completed the survey. Two students did not answer this demographic question
but these two students indicated they were enrolled in units at the time they completed
the survey.
124
Descriptive statistics reveal a snapshot of the students who participated in the
survey. Twenty-five or 55.6% were female and 20, or 44.4%, were male. Out of the 45
American Indian students who participated in the survey, 22 participants stated they were
American Indian-only while 23 stated they were American Indian and some other ethnic
group(s). The race or ethnic identity of the student is important to this study because
students were disqualified if they did not state they were Native-only or Native in
conjunction with other racial or ethnic groups. The following information reveals more
about the sample.
Table 6
Race or Ethnicity of Participants
Twenty were tribally enrolled while 25 were not. Almost half the participants
(22) were California Natives with more students representing the following tribes:
Miwok (3), Wintu (3), Yurok (2), Pomo Big Valley Rancheria Lake County (2). The
Cherokee Nation had the largest number of participants with six students total.
125
Table 7
Tribal Affiliation
Not listed
Cherokee
Purephecha
Miwok*
Comanche
Blackfeet (Blood)
1
6
1
3
1
1
Chickasaw
1
Cherokee &
Creek
1
Paiute *& First
Nations Cree
Wailacki*
1
Conkow Maidu*
1
1
Yurok*
Lumi
Apache
Chippewa & Cree
Wintu*
Maidu Konkow*
Round Valley Covelo
Pomo Big Valley*
Rancheria Lake County
Konkow Maidu, *
Wintun, Hupa
2
1
1
1
3
1
Cherokee & Chuctaw
Piscataway/Conoy
Yaqui*
Cherokee/Pomo*
Pit River/Paiute*
Apache/Mascalero
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Yaqui & Apache
2
1
1
Blackfood & Cherokee
& Apache
Mestizo
1
Te-Moak Band
Western Shoshone
Elko Colony
Mono*
1
Konkow Maidu –*
Mooretown Rancheria
1
Yuki, Pomo,*
Konkow Round
Valley, Assiniboine,
Montana, Miwok
ElDorado
Modac/Klammath*
1
1
1
* California Tribe/Nation
A combined 11 students, or 25% of the students who took the survey, were 18 and
19 years old. Fourteen, or 31.8%, students’ ages ranged between 20 and 29 years.
Nineteen students, or 43.4%, fell between the ages of 30 and 56 years. Participants’
educational goals ranged from certificate to doctorate with a majority of degrees falling
in the Masters range (see Table 8).
126
Table 8
Participants’ Educational Goals
Educational Goal
Certificate
AA/AS
BA/BS
MA/MA
PhD
# Students
2
11
12
14
6
The survey revealed a majority, or 31.1%, of participating Native students would
be seeking their Masters degrees. A significant number would be seeking their Bachelors
(26.7%) and Associates (24.4%) degrees, as well. In addition, 13.3% would seek their
doctorate degrees. A majority of the students who participated in the study did indicate
they would be transferring to a four-year institution, supporting the data about Nativeonly students provided by the PRIE Office. Majors included but were not limited to:
Law, Business, Japanese, Sign Language, Ethnic Studies/Native American Studies,
Psychology, Art, History, Engineering, Nursing, and Anthropology. Several students
were undecided. Over half the students who participated in the study were single and had
no children. The following charts reveal more pertinent data related to marital status and
the number of children in the family.
127
Table 9
Number of Children and Marital Status of Participants
Children
Marital Status
Students
Single
28
Married
6
Domestic Partnership
2
Divorced
4
Separated
3
Widow
1
Kids
26
0
8
1
6
2
2
3
1
4
2
6
A majority, or 63.6%, of American Indian students who took the survey were single.
And a majority of Native American students (57.8%) did not have any children.
A bulk of the students recruited for the study were in attendance at the
Sacramento City College (SCC) Indigenous Student’s Welcome/Welcome Back
scheduled in the fall semester 2011. Out of the initial 45 students who took the survey at
the event, only 37 met eligibility requirements. Eight additional surveys were obtained
by the researcher at informal Native gatherings in the late fall of 2011 and early spring
2012 semesters to total 45 complete surveys.
128
Focus Groups
Within the demographic section of the survey, a question asked the student if they
were interested in participating in a focus group. Those who were interested provided
their contact information and were given a focus group consent form. Twenty-six
students indicated they were interested. This researcher created a separate list of the 26
students and their contact information. A Research Assistant was instructed to call
students on the list to make initial contact to determine if the student was still interested
and determine whether or not they were available to meet on the date focus groups were
scheduled. The Research Assistant was able to confirm 16 interested students whom she
initially scheduled within each respective focus group time frame. This researcher
contacted the 16 students to confirm and remind them of the focus group two days before
the sessions took place. Even though efforts were made to confirm and remind students
of the focus groups three students did not show on the date and time they were scheduled
to attend. Two of the three who did not attend had last-minute family emergencies and
they let the researcher know the day of the focus groups sessions.
Ten of the students were female and three were male. All 13 students were
enrolled at Sacramento City College. Nine out of the 13 were enrolled in their tribe.
Four were affiliated with a tribe.
Survey and focus group response rates. The original target sample size for the
survey was 250 students, but this number was reduced to 50 because of the difficulty in
obtaining participants. In the end, only 45 completed surveys with consent forms. Out of
129
the 45 survey participants, 26 students indicated they were interested in participating in a
focus group. Ten students either changed their minds about participating, were not
available to meet on the day scheduled, or their contact information was not valid.
Sixteen students confirmed their participation, but on the day of the focus groups, three
students did not show, leaving 13 participants in total. Focus group one had six students
participate, focus group two had four students participate, and focus group three had three
students participate.
Instrumentation and Materials
Survey
Quantitative data was gathered via a nine-page survey instrument developed by
the researcher with inspiration from Baxter’s (2009) survey, which incorporated
demographic questions specific to American Indians (see Appendix A). Additional
surveys that influenced this research were the National Study for Student Engagement
(2007), The Community College Student Report (2005), The Student Success Survey
(Rios Kravitz, 2011), The Student Academic Success Survey (Buechner, 2004) and
Ranking Resiliency Factors (Holt, Mahowald, & DeVore, 2002). Each of the mentioned
surveys had been used in previous studies and were found to be statistically valid for the
research done. The National Study for Student Engagement and the Community College
Student Report are traditionally utilized by community colleges and universities to collect
data on their student bodies. The Student Success Survey is being used in a current study
130
at Sacramento City College, the Student Academic Success Survey has been used in a
pilot study, and Ranking Resiliency Factors has been used in a published study (Holt et
al., 2002).
The researcher was not able to find one existing survey that contained all the
variables stipulated by the literature to be significant to Native American community
college student success. Hence, the survey instrument was derived from factors
identified within the research that either supported or served as a barrier to student
success. The survey was divided into several sections. The demographic section alone
was three pages. The remaining six sections of the survey were designed to examine the
extent to which student success, the independent variable, was impacted by several other
dependent variables. Section one asked questions pertaining to capital or resources and
barriers with family, social or college community, tribe or cultural community, student
characteristics, and what would cause students to withdraw from college. Section two
focused on precollege academic preparation. Section three asked questions pertaining to
financial support. Section four involved faculty and coursework. Section five
concentrated on institutional commitment and support, and section six brought in
resiliency characteristics.
Demographic questions ranged from the general to specific pertaining to the age,
gender/sex, marital status, socio-economic status, discipline major, grade point average,
intention to graduate, units enrolled, units completed, complete a certificate or transfer,
how far students intended to take their education, tribal affiliation, if their tribe was
131
federally recognized, if they were an enrolled tribal member, if they received financial or
other support from their tribe, if they took college preparatory courses in high school,
parents educational levels, if the student was the first generation in their family to attend
college, etc. Primary variables in the demographic section indicating student success as
defined by this researcher included grade point average (GPA), units taken, and units
enrolled. These three variables alone relate to persistence, retention, and active
engagement.
In section one, questions regarding capital, resources, and barriers focusing on
family and community involvement and support were asked. The first four questions
asked the student to rate on a Likert-type scale ranging from N/A or not applicable, not at
all, not very, somewhat, quite a bit, to extremely important, how supportive their
immediate/extended family, friends attending college, community, and tribe were to
them. Students were also asked to rate on a scale of never, not at all, rarely, sometimes,
and often, how often they participated in tribal or Native community activities.
Additional questions in this section focused on students rating on three different scales
the quality of their relationships with fellow students, instructors, and administration.
Categories to choose from associated with student relationships with fellow students
included sense of alienation, unsupportive, unfriendly, sense of belonging, supportive,
and friendly. For instructors, students could choose not sympathetic, unhelpful,
unavailable, sympathetic, helpful, and available. Rigid, inconsiderate, unhelpful,
flexible, considerate, and helpful were choices in the administration category.
132
The next question in section one dealt with student experiences at Sacramento
City College and how they contributed to their knowledge, skills, and resource base.
Students were asked to rate, on a Likert-type scale of not at all, very little, some, quite a
bit and very much, several factors including acquiring work-related knowledge/skills,
computer skills, working with others from diverse ethnic groups, understanding self,
contributing to the welfare of their tribe or community, developing clear career goals, and
gaining information about career opportunities.
Student characteristics were the focus of the next question in section one.
Students were asked to rate the degree to which student characteristics served as barriers
to academic success. Not applicable (N/A) or does not apply, no barrier/no effect on
success, moderate barrier or major barrier were the choices given. Factors ranging from
motivation, to inadequate preparation for college-level work, inadequate study skills, first
generation to attend college, commuting, socio-economic disadvantage, indecision about
major and career goals, inadequate financial resources, physical and mental health
problems, lack of support from significant others, family demands, job demands, social
integration, academic integration, distance from home, and inadequate coping skills were
covered.
How likely specific issues would cause a student to withdraw from class or from
the college was the content of the next question in this section. Not likely, somewhat
likely, likely, and very likely was the scale students could choose from. Factors included
working full-time, caring for dependents, whether or not the student was academically
133
unprepared, lack of finances, personal motivation, computer access, restrictive
admissions practices, bureaucratic financial aid services, bureaucratic academic advising,
judgmental attitude of faculty or staff for students, limited academic support service, no
available housing, limited number and variety of courses, racially biased professor,
transportation issues, and transfer to a four-year college or university were also included.
In section two, questions regarding precollege academic preparation or high
school experiences were asked. Students were asked to rate their school as above
average, average, below average, or not sure. Question two in this section focused on
factors that were helpful or those that served as barriers. Students were given the option
of choosing does not apply, major barrier, barrier, neither helpful nor barrier, helpful, and
very helpful. Factors included taking college preparatory courses, taking college or
university courses, teachers, counselors, classmates, friends at school, parents, family,
career center, tutoring, academic preparation (learned skills), participation in pre-college
programs (Upward Bound, Alpha Academy, AVID), visiting four-year institutions,
visiting a community college, summer bridge program, and other were given.
Section three concentrated on financial support. The first question in this section
asked whether or not the student believed they had enough financial support to achieve
their academic goal. They could choose yes or no. Question two in this section asked
students to indicate whether or not their own income/savings, parents’ income/savings,
spouse’s/significant other’s income/savings, employer contributions, grants and
134
scholarships, student loans, tribal monies, or public assistance were a major source, minor
source, or not a source of support used to pay tuition at Sacramento City College.
In the fourth section, questions were asked pertaining to faculty and coursework.
The extent to which professors contributed to academic development was the first
question. Students were given a range to choose from in their answer including N/A, not
at all, not very, somewhat, and very. In question two of this section, students were given
the same scale but were asked to rate their professor’s involvement in their academic
success. Question three asked about the importance of several variables to the student’s
academic success. Clear and interesting lectures or labs, class participation,
encouragement and respect from professors, good use of classroom technology, fair
exams and other evaluations, clear feedback, good textbooks, useful homework, clear
course materials, working in groups in class, clear expectations about requirements, tutor
availability, chance to choose between many sections, class size, class time, access to
computers and other resources, feeling welcome in class, participating in learning
communities, doing remedial/developmental coursework, and participating in service
learning programs were the factors to be rated on a scale of very, somewhat, not very, not
at all, and N/A.
Section five centered on institutional commitment and support. The first three
questions delved into the use of, satisfaction with, and importance of specific services
including academic advising, career counseling, job placement assistance, peer or other
tutoring, skill labs, child care, financial aid advising, computer labs, student
135
organizations, transfer credit assistance, services to students with disabilities, EOPS and
RISE. Assessment was an additional category added to questions two and three in this
section. In question one, students could chose between N/A, don’t know, never, rarely,
sometimes, and often. In questions two and three, students had the option of choosing
N/A, not at all, somewhat, and very.
Question four in section five dealt with how students felt Sacramento City
College emphasized the following: encouraging time spent on studying; providing
support needed to ensure success; encouraging interaction amongst students from diverse
backgrounds; helping students cope with non-academic responsibilities (family, work,
childcare, etc.); providing support to thrive socially; providing financial support;
contributing to the welfare of the community; solving complex real world problems;
understanding self; rules and regulations/policy; voting in local, state, tribal, or national
elections; and attendance at campus events and activities. Students were asked to rate
each factor based on how they felt the institution emphasized them. The rating included
very little, some, quite a bit and very much.
Question five in section five focused on how students evaluated their entire
educational experience at Sacramento City College. They were given the following
categories: poor, fair, good, and excellent. Question six asked if the student would
recommend this college (SCC) to a friend or family member with a yes or no response
requested. And finally, question seven in this section asked if they could start all over
136
again, would they choose the same institution they were now attending with options to
answer definitely yes, probably yes, probably no, and definitely no.
Section six asked students to rank factors in the resiliency rank chart. Students
were asked if the following factors were or have been the most important resiliency
factors in regard to their academic success: scholarship/financial support, mentors, salary,
role models, family support, time spent with family, friend/peer support,
social/community support, high school preparatory support, or spiritual support. Other
factors were open for students to include additional factors. Students were supposed to
rank only the top five with one being the most likely factor and five being the least.
Each section listed above concentrated on variables that connected to diverse
kinds of capital or resources as well as barriers. For instance, family involvement and
support connects with family capital, cultural capital, and/or navigational capital
depending on how the family assists the student. If relatives know about how to navigate
the educational system and they teach this to the student, then it is considered
navigational capital. Community involvement and support is linked to social capital,
navigational capital (depending on the example), and/or cultural capital depending on
whether or not the community is identified as the Native community. Pre-college
academic experience in grades K-12 is associated with navigational capital. Peer/mentor
relationships are associated with social capital unless distinctly connected to the Native
community and then becomes identified as cultural capital and/or navigational capital.
Institutional resources/financial support as well as counseling, experiences with
137
faculty/coursework and institutional commitment and support are all considered social
capital and/or navigational capital. Helpful and non-helpful services are identified and
related to internal institutional resources. External resources of the institution include
tribal resources, public assistance, or community resources. Barriers were also identified
within each of the capital areas.
Focus Groups
Three focus groups of five students each were planned to gather qualitative data.
Six students participated in focus group one; four students in focus group two, and three
students in focus group three actually participated. Participants in the focus groups were
asked the same series of questions in the same order related to factors leading to and
barriers preventing American Indian community college students from achieving success.
Students participated in a guided discussion approach based on a scripted series of
questions that covered the same or similar categories as the survey, pertinent to the
literature (Baxter, 2009). Participants in the focus groups were asked about factors that
assisted in their success and barriers they have experienced. They were also asked to
assess the most important factors affecting their success. These questions directly related
to the three primary research questions of the study.
Questions relating to the primary research questions of the study were grouped
into four categories: opening, introductory, transition, and key. Questions were designed
to elicit information about how students felt and thought about their own personal and
peer Native student success at the community college level. Questions followed a semi-
138
structured questioning format with the desired goal of consistency for validity and
reliability purposes.
The first three opening questions were demographic in nature and were meant to
initiate dialogue, build rapport, and promote comfort between participants and the
researcher (Baxter, 2009; Creswell, 2003; Krueger & Casey, 2000). Tribal membership
or affiliation, location in which the student was raised, where they currently lived, and
how many community college units taken provided a base of knowledge.
The next four introductory questions were open-ended and introduced the topic of
discussion. These questions encouraged participants to share what they thought and how
they felt, their attitudes and perceptions (Baxter, 2009; Creswell, 2003; Krueger & Casey,
2000) about Native student success. Questions focused on how students felt about their
experience as a community college student, educational services that had been helpful,
and what made them helpful, as well as services that have been frustrating and what made
them frustrating. Included in this section was also a question about specific barriers to
academic success.
The following two questions were transition questions. In order to look deeper
into the points of view of participants and shift the discussion to the key questions of the
study (Baxter, 2009; Creswell, 2003; Krueger & Casey, 2000), one question about how
family, community, and tribe felt about student attendance at college and one question
about the student’s primary goal at college and the impetus for their motivation were
asked. Finally, key questions that promoted self-disclosure were asked (Baxter, 2009;
139
Creswell, 2003; Krueger & Casey, 2000). Topics of the questions included greatest
resources that positively impact academic success, cultural values that had assisted in
achieving success, greatest barriers preventing success, Native community college
student needs, what could be done to better serve Native students, and the last question
which was omitted due to time constraints was educational goal in relation to ability to
obtain a job (see Appendix B for questions).
Specific codes were created and used to identify barriers, needs, resiliency
strategies, and different forms of capital within the focus group transcripts. These codes
were taken from the research and the capital categories established by Yosso (2005) on
community cultural wealth. Because this research is also reviewing barriers, needs,
services, and resiliency characteristics, these codes were also added.
Table 10
Codes for Analyzing Focus Groups
The code, BAR represents barriers. Barriers work to prevent student success. In
this way, they work against any type of resource or capital. To address student success,
this study must identify academic barriers, needs, and resources or services, as well as
140
resiliency characteristics that help overcome barriers. An example of a barrier includes
limited or no financial resources to attend college, which would equate to a personal and
academic need. A helpful service (HSVC) like financial aid could assist in creating a
bridge to overcome this barrier or the student may rely on other forms of capital like
family (FAMC) or tribal funds (CULC) to assist in the financial need, which may end up
being a reziliency (REZ) characteristic. Barriers can be internal to the institution or
external, existing outside the institution but still having a negative impact on the student.
Internal barriers are within the institutions purview to change. External barriers are
largely left up to the student to reconcile. Lacking capital in some areas can act as a
barrier unless other capital is used to fulfill the student’s need.
PNED is the code used to determine whether or not something is a personal need.
Examples of personal needs would be food or housing and transportation. Personal needs
are primarily ones that exist outside of academia but have an indirect and/or direct impact
on academic student success and must be considered. For instance, the need for
transportation was mentioned earlier. Students need to go to the store to buy food to
survive, but they also need to be able to get to college to be academically successful.
This type of personal indirect need can also be considered a direct academic need
(ANED). When personal needs and academic needs align, it makes that need so much
more integral to academic success.
Academic needs span a broad range including the need to have a supportive
campus environment in order to be successful and supportive professors and counselors;
141
even textbooks can be included in this category. Academic needs have a direct impact on
student success and as mentioned earlier when joined with personal needs, the impact is
much greater. The institution has direct control or some type of regulatory power over
many of the resources that fulfill academic needs. If a barrier exists within the academic
needs sphere, student success is then dependent not only on the student finding some type
of resources or services to meet this need but it relies also on the institution to provide
resources or services for the student to become academically successful.
Educational institutions often provide services or programs for students who have
academic needs. HSVC is the code for helpful service. When students identify helpful
services it means the services have helped the student in some way to be successful. For
example, if a student takes advantage of free tutoring provided by the institution and
finds that tutoring has been a service that has helped them achieve academic success in
that they received a passing grade or better in the class for which they were being tutored,
then the student may see tutoring as a helpful service. Conversely, NHSVC is a not
helpful service. Students who identify non-helpful services are identifying possible
barriers to their success. Services discussed are either college or institutionally provided
(internal) services or community (external) services. Because college campuses have
tried to account for the many needs of students, oftentimes resources can be found on
campus that provide external services like CalWORKs offices or state funded welfare to
work programs. If a student finds this type of service is not helpful, there is little to
nothing that can be done by the institution to effect change within this type of program
142
because it is operated by the state of California. It is important to differentiate between
external and internal services in order to identify institutional barriers that need to change
to have a greater impact on student success.
Yosso’s (2005, 2006) Community Cultural Wealth concept validates diverse types
of capital obtained from the community. Types of capital identified by Yosso (2005)
include: aspirational, cultural, familial, navigational, resistant, social, and linguistic
capital. For this study, linguistic capital was omitted because very few Native tribes
continue to speak their indigenous languages and because the population of Native
students in an urban area generally reflects an urban Indian population that usually speaks
English as their first language. These different types of capital were used to code
responses to questions within the focus groups. Note that more than one type of capital
can apply to any given situation, and through the process of reziliency students operate an
intricate capital exchange system they have built and maintained, which exists uniquely
for them. Yosso’s (2006) diverse types of capital exist for every student. How much
capital they possess and of which type depends on their interaction with their
environment, which makes each student’s system of exchange unique.
Aspirational capital, coded ASPC is a form of capital possessed by students that
provides hope in the face of oppression and hardship. This type of capital also
incorporates motivation and inspiration and can be seen as a resiliency characteristic.
Maintaining aspirations in the face of obstacles, oppression, and limited resources and
services directly relates to resiliency. Different resources can be turned into aspirational
143
capital. For example, if the student’s family believes the student can be successful, this
support from the family or family capital (FAMC) can be turned into aspirational capital.
Anything motivating the students to succeed can be considered aspirational capital, but it
may also have roots in other resources or other forms of capital like family, culture, or
community. Familial capital, coded as FAMC is possessed by students who are
culturally competent because of their connection to a knowledge base built by family,
which carries with it a sense of identity, community, history, and memory.
Cultural capital, or CULC, is the inherent ability to access resources and
opportunities associated with birthright, family, culture, and community. One example of
cultural capital is when students rely on cultural values or morals like sharing to obtain
student success. If sharing is defined as a cultural imperative, then it may be expected
that Native students share their class notes with other students. Sharing notes could lead
to student success. Cultural capital is often associated with Navigational capital
(NAVC), the knowledge of college-going processes and skills for navigating or
maneuvering through institutes of education because this is associated through family or
community knowledge. If another Native student knows how to navigate the educational
system then by sharing this information, he/she is not only providing navigational capital
but he/she is also working with cultural capital. Diverse types of capital do not need to
be exclusionary of each other. In fact, they oftentimes work together to increase student
success.
144
Social capital, coded as SOCC is different from Cultural capital in that it refers to
the larger society or community, which for the purposes of this study could mean the
college campus community representing an internal resource or a broader external
community extending into the city of Sacramento, which expands beyond the Native,
tribal, or cultural community. Social capital refers to the capital possessed by students
made up of networks and community resources shared locally. Peer and other social
stakeholders are influential in that they possess insider information and can provide
emotional support.
Resistant capital, coded as RESC, is possessed by students who have obtained
knowledge and skills to challenge inequality and social injustice. Resistant capital is
rooted in historic and modern day resistance strategies to oppression. Resistant capital is
utilized when Native students need a voice, specifically in situations when the
educational institution is seen as oppressive and racist. This type of capital is pursuant to
change within the internal education system and is often seen as an external force trying
to impose its will on the larger system. In reality, resistant capital may play a role in
student success especially if through resistance capital students are able to make changes
within the system that afford them with services or resources they need to be
academically successful.
REZ stands for reziliency characteristics. A REZ characteristic is one that allows
for coping and the use of learned skills to adapt with the environment, situation, or
circumstance. Reziliency characteristics assist students in overcoming barriers especially
145
in oppressive conditions. One example of a reziliency characteristic is the ability to
convert or use different types of capital to bridge barriers and fulfill personal and/or
academic needs. If students need financial aid to attend college and they do not receive
any grants or loans because of some glitch in their paperwork, they may be able to rely on
family or “cash in” on family capital by borrowing money from their parents to help them
with their personal and academic need to pay their fees or pay for their textbooks. One
other reziliency characteristic example would be if a Native student experienced racism
in the classroom from the professor. Because the professor is in an authority position, the
Native student is at a disadvantage. The student may feel he/she cannot address the
problem with the professor because his/her grade would be in jeopardy so a reziliant
characteristic might be the ability to drop that class and take it with another professor,
which would indicate the use of navigational capital. Or the student may choose to stay
in the class and challenge the professor’s stereotypes by using resistance capital, but then
the student would have to deal with the barrage of daily racial oppression directly
impacting the student’s self esteem and identity and leading to greater personal and
emotional needs that must be fulfilled by other types of capital.
Data Collection
Quantitative Data Collection
Quantitative data was gathered from the survey instrument, as described in the
previous section. Quantitative data was taken from the survey answers pertaining to
146
demographic information and responses to a variety of questions that employed Likerttype scales and ranked order about factors previous research supports as barriers to or
identifies as success factors leading to academic success of Native American students.
This data was used to contribute to the answers of the three research questions. Research
question #1: What are the academic and personal needs of American Indian community
college students? Research question #2: What are the perceived barriers that American
Indian students face at the community college level? Research question #3: What are the
resiliency and persistence characteristics employed by American Indian community
college students that contribute to student success?
Quantitative Data Analysis
The survey was entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). Over 200 related variables were initially analyzed in SPSS. A Pearson
Correlation Coefficient analyses which “assess[es] the degree that quantitative variables
are linearly related in a sample” (Green & Salkind, 2011, p. 256) was administered using
SPSS for the quantitative survey responses to determine the extent to which the
independent variable, student success as seen through a 2.0 grade point average, units
completed and units enrolled was related to the dependent variables or factors students
identify as significant.
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative data was gathered from the focus group sessions as described in the
previous section. Students interested in the focus groups provided their contact
147
information on the survey and were given a focus group consent form. Twenty-six
students indicated they were interested. This researcher created a separate list of the 26
students and their contact information and reserved a conference room at Sacramento
City College on Friday February 3, 2012 as the location. Three separate one-hour time
frames were set with a 15-minute cushion between each session. A Research Assistant
was instructed to call students on the list to make initial contact to determine if the
students were still interested and determine whether or not they were available to meet on
the date focus groups were scheduled. Each student was given a choice of three different
times. Phone numbers were disconnected for three students and two additional students
called indicated they were no longer interested in participating in the focus groups. The
Research Assistant was able to confirm 16 interested students whom she initially
scheduled within each respective focus group time frame. This researcher contacted the
16 students to confirm and remind them of the focus group two days before the sessions
took place. Even though efforts were made to confirm and remind students of the focus
groups, three students did not show on the date and time they were scheduled to attend.
Two of the three who did not attend had last-minute family emergencies, and they let the
researcher know the day of the focus groups sessions. A stenographer was hired to
transcribe the focus group discussions as they took place. The stenographer did not know
the participants in the groups personally.
148
Qualitative Data Analysis
Within five days, the transcripts were received in both hard copy and in three
separate word documents via email from the stenographer. The researcher read through
all the data to cross reference and check key points in her notes. The researcher then
coded the data by making notes in the margins based on codes described in an earlier
section, which related directly to the research questions:

Research Question #1: What are the academic and personal needs of
American Indian community college students?

Research question #2: What are the perceived barriers that American Indian
students face at the community college level?

Research question #3: What are the resiliency and persistence characteristics
employed by American Indian community college students contributing to
student success?
The purpose of the study, to determine the academic and personal needs,
perceived barriers, and resiliency characteristics and success factors of Native students to
aid in their academic success was also directly related to the research questions and codes
used on the transcripts. Pertinent information from coded transcripts was typed into a
table based on codes and themes to be used in Chapters 4 and 5.
149
Protecting Participant Rights
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of California State
University, Sacramento and the Sacramento City College Research Review Committee or
informal IRB in fall 2011 and contained minimal risk to the participants. Procedures
were followed to provide participants with the least amount of risk and maintain their
comfort throughout the completion of the survey and during the focus group sessions.
Protective measures included: (1) student contact information was kept confidential; (2)
the survey did not ask students to provide their names, just demographic information, so
their identity remained anonymous; (3) confidentiality was maintained of all respondents
by not making the database available to others and by creating a private pass code to
access the data; (4) numbers were used for all participants and confidentiality will be kept
for all participants in any document made public, i.e., research papers, publications, or
presentation; (5) participants were required to indicate they read and consented to
participate in the study prior to taking the survey or prior to participating in the focus
group (the consent form specified the purpose of the study and described ways in which
their contributions would be used); (6) participants were notified they had the option to
withdraw from the study at any time or not answer questions that give them discomfort.
Consent forms, surveys, transcriptions of focus group meetings, and data gleaned
from the surveys and transcriptions were kept separate in a locked file cabinet in the
researcher’s home office and on the researcher’s personal computer under password lock
and encryption to be destroyed within six months upon completion of the research.
150
The subjects’ rights to privacy and safety was protected by ensuring that few
people had access to participant information or data. The researcher, the faculty
supervising this research, up to two research assistants, and the stenographer hired to
record/transcribe the focus groups were the only people who had access to varied forms
of the data. Procedures like assigning numbers to participants at the very beginning when
the survey data was first collected were followed to disconnect student identification
from the exact data and to protect student privacy. The only person who had access to
the linked data was the researcher. Names of participants were not used on the survey
directly, instead numbers were assigned. A separate consent form was used for the focus
groups. Contact information including phone numbers and or email addresses (that did
not have identifying characteristics like the participant’s name or any identification
numbers) were associated with the participant’s assigned number for this study to be able
to contact participants interested in participating in a focus group. Students who
participated in the focus groups were also referred to as their first name in the focus
group session. These names were changed to participant numbers in coding the
transcripts. Consent forms and contact information was kept in a separate area and will
be destroyed six months after the study is complete. During the study, all hard copies of
consent forms, surveys, and transcriptions were kept at the home of the researcher in a
locked file cabinet. In addition, some of the data was kept on the researcher’s laptop
computer under password lock and encryption. There were separate locked and coded
folders on the researcher’s computer for consent forms, actual data, and for other
151
identifying information. Back-up files were kept separately, encrypted, and destroyed
upon completion of the study. All data will be destroyed six months after completion of
the study.
Conclusion
Data was collected, transcribed, and analyzed during the fall 2011 and spring
2012 semesters. Analysis included inputting quantitative data into SPSS files to run
correlation analyses as well as code focus groups. Coding focus group discussions was
based on coding as a means of data reduction. Coding is a qualitative method of
associating conceptual labels with words or passages iterated in focus groups, then
assigning similar passages into like categories (Alder & Clark, 1999). Words were used
to categorize common themes aligning with research questions. The process began by
identifying themes or forms of capital from the survey like “family support” or
“community support.” Subsequent steps included focused coding identifying terms from
the theoretical framework, discarding what was not related. Codes for the qualitative
analysis included the use of capital, resiliency strategies, etc. Both types of data,
quantitative and qualitative, were triangulated for consistency and to link meaning with
behaviors. Chapters 4 and 5 provide greater detail of the data and significance of the
findings.
152
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
And while I stood there I saw more than I can tell, and I understood more than I saw;
for I was seeing in a sacred manner the shapes of things in the spirit,
and the shape of all shapes as they must live together like one being.
Black Elk, Black Elk Speaks, p. 33
This chapter is comprised of quantitative survey data results and qualitative focus
group data. Both quantitative and qualitative data address the three research questions.
The purpose of this study was to determine the self-perceived needs, barriers, and
resiliency characteristics contributing to or diminishing the academic success of
American Indian community college students at Sacramento City College. Relevant
quantitative and qualitative data are addressed in accordance with each respective
research question.
Needs, barriers, and resiliency characteristics are the independent variables upon
which student success depends; therefore, student success is the dependent variable.
Pearson Correlations were run on the quantitative data between the independent variables
to establish which factors emerged as significant. Qualitative data were then reviewed
for emergent concepts associated with at least one of the three independent variable
categories – needs, barriers, or resiliency characteristics. Triangulation between the data
153
then took place to assemble a complete list of specific needs, barriers, and resiliency
characteristics of Native community college students who took part in this study.

Research Question 1: What are the academic and personal needs of American
Indian community college students?

Research Question 2: What are the perceived barriers American Indian
students face at the community college level?

Research Question 3: What are the resiliency and other characteristics
employed by American Indian community college students that contribute to
student success?
Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data from the survey address the three research questions. A Pearson
Correlation analysis was conducted to ascertain significant relationships between the
independent variables related to needs, barriers, and resiliency characteristics. Table 4
was constructed to reveal significant independent quantitative variables and serves as an
outline for this section of the chapter.
154
Table 11
Independent Quantitative Variables Impacting Native Student Success
Needs
Barriers
Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Resiliency
Financial Support
Financial Aid Advising
Inadequate Financial
Resources/Lack of Finances
Scholarship/Financial
Support
Bureaucratic Financial Aid
Services
Too Many Family Demands
Spiritual Support
Academic Advising/ RISE
EOPS
Bureaucratic Academic
Advising
Social/Community
Support
Peer & Other tutoring
Restrictive Admissions
Practices
Friend/Peer Support
Skill Labs
Limited Academic Support
Role Model
Limited Courses
Mentor
Inadequate Coping Skills
Transportation Issues
Significant Correlations
Significant correlations were found between some independent variables related
to needs, barriers, and resiliency characteristics. Categories established in the literature
explored in this study to determine needs, barriers, and resiliency characteristics included
family involvement, community involvement, pre-college academic preparation or high
155
school experience, finances, faculty and coursework, institutional commitment, and
resiliency characteristics. The following sections will further illustrate significant
correlations.
Needs
This section will provide the reader with frequency statistics and correlations
pertaining to student needs. Needs are defined as resources or skills needed to be
successful. If a need is not met it may become a barrier to student success. Significant
correlations occurred within the following categories: finances, academic advising, RISE,
EOPS, peer and other tutoring and skill labs.
156
Table 12
Significant Correlations Among Variables Related to Student Needs
Finances
This section provides the reader with frequency statistics and correlations
pertaining to student finances. Sources of financial support were specific factors
addressed in this section.
157
Frequency data ~ Annual yearly income. In the demographics section of the
survey, students were asked to indicate their annual yearly income. The following
frequency chart is the breakdown of student income. A majority of the students who
answered this question (29, or 72.5%) fell at or below the $20,000 yearly income level.
Twenty percent, or 10 students out of the 45 who took this survey and answered this
question fell within the $0-2000 range.
Table 13
Annual Yearly Income Frequency Data
Income
Students
0-2000
2001-5000
5001-8000
8001-10000
1000112000
Total
10
2
4
3
3
40
Income
12001-15000
15001-18000
18001-20000
20001-25000
35001-40000
Missing
Students
Income
Students
2
3
2
1
1
40001-45000
45001-50000
60001-65000
65001-70000
95001-100000
2
2
3
1
1
5
Grand Total
45
Approximately 60% or 27 students stated they received financial aid in the demographics
section of the survey.
Sources of financial support. In section three of the survey, question 2 asked
students to indicate from a list of sources used to pay tuition, which ones were major,
minor, or not a source of financial support. Significant correlations occurred between
public assistance as a major source used to pay tuition and grants and scholarships as a
major source of financial support used to pay tuition.
158
Tribal support and type. Although tribal support was listed as a source of
financial support for a few students, when this independent variable was correlated with
other variables in the survey, there was no significance. Frequency data indicate a
majority of the students (86.7%, or 39 out of 45) who participated in the survey did not
receive tribal financial support. For those who did receive tribal financial support, the
type of support ranged from education funds set aside by the tribe, to grants, scholarships,
the tribe paying for tuition and supplies, as well as use of per capita to pay for college.
Per capita distributions are monetary payments to Native citizens of federally recognized
tribes through either the Bureau of Indian Affairs or from the tribe. The monies are
garnered from leased land in trust or Indian businesses the tribe owns and operates.
Public Assistance as a source of support used to pay tuition. Students who used
public assistance as a major source of support to pay tuition were also likely to see grants
and scholarships as a major source of support used to pay tuition.
Table 14
Correlation Public Assistance/Grants & Scholarships Sources of Major Support to Pay
Tuition
Public Assistance used to pay
tuition
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=37
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Grants & Scholarships used to pay tuition
.499**
.002
df=35
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between using public assistance as a major financial resource to pay
159
tuition and students who use grants and scholarships as another major likely resource to
pay tuition was significant, r(35) = .50, p<.01. The effect size (.499) is high. Students
who were likely to use public assistance as a major source to pay their tuition were likely
to also use grants and scholarships as a major financial resource to pay tuition.
Academic advising and student services ~ EOPS & RISE. Section five of the
survey asked questions about institutional commitment and support. Question one asked
how often services were used, question two asked how satisfied students were with those
services, and question three asked about the importance of the services. Students were
asked to rank how often they used the services with options of often, sometimes, rarely,
never, don’t know, and N/A. When asked how important or satisfied with services
students were given the option of choosing very, somewhat, not at all or N/A.
EOPS, which stands for Extended Opportunities Programs and Services and
RISE, which stands for Respect, Integrity, Self-determination, and Education have many
significant correlated factors: a) students who ranked public assistance as a major source
to pay tuition were more likely to state they used EOPS & RISE often; b) students who
ranked public assistance as a major source to pay tuition were more likely to state EOPS
and RISE were very important services; c) students who ranked EOPS and RISE to be
very important were likely to often use peer and other tutoring; d) students who ranked
RISE to be very important were also likely to find tutor availability very important to
their academic success; e) students who ranked EOPS and RISE to be very important
were also likely to rate skill labs as very important; f) students who ranked EOPS and
160
RISE to be very important were likely to be very satisfied with skill labs; g) students
likely to be very satisfied with EOPS were also likely to be very satisfied with academic
advising; h) students who found RISE to be very important also found academic advising
to be very important; i) students who found EOPS to be very important were likely to
find financial aid advising to be very satisfying;
Table 15
Correlation of Students Who Rely on Public Assistance/Students Who Used EOPS and
RISE
Students who were likely to rely
on public assistance as a major
source to pay tuition
Likely to often use EOPS
Likely to often use RISE
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N
Df
Effect Size
p
.464**
.529**
.006
.001
33
34
31
32
.464 M-High
.529 High
<.01
=.001
The researcher is 99% sure correlation findings are not due to chance. The
correlation between students likely to rely on public assistance as a major source to pay
tuition and also likely to often use EOPS was significant, r(31) = .46, p<.01. The effect
size (.464) is between medium and high. The correlation between students who were
likely to rely on public assistance as a major source to pay tuition were also likely to
often use RISE was significant, r(32) = .53, p=.001. The effect size (.529) is high. These
correlations indicate students likely to rely on public assistance to pay for their tuition
were also likely to often use EOPS and RISE.
161
Table 16
Correlation Students Who Rely on Public Assistance/Importance of EOPS & RISE
Students who were likely to
rely on public assistance as a
major source to pay tuition
Likely to see EOPS as very
important
Likely to see RISE as very
important
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N
df
Effect
Size
p
.566**
.000
34
32 .566 High
<.001
.496**
.003
34
32 .496 High
<.01
The researcher is 99% sure correlation findings are not due to chance. The
correlation between students likely to rely on public assistance as a major source to pay
tuition were also likely to see EOPS as very important was significant, r(32) = .57,
p<.001. The effect size (.566) is high. The correlation between students likely to rely on
public assistance as a major source to pay tuition were also likely to see RISE as very
important was significant, r(32) = .50, p<.01. The effect size (.496) is high. The
correlations mean students likely to rely on public assistance to pay their tuition were
likely to see both EOPS and RISE as very important.
Table 17
Correlation Importance of EOPS and RISE/ Use of Peer and Other Tutoring
Students who were likely
Pearson
to often use peer and other Correlation
tutoring
Likely to see EOPS as
.495**
very important
Likely to see RISE as very .462**
important
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.003
34
32
.495 High
<.01
.006
34
32
.462 M-High
<.01
162
The researcher is 99% sure correlation findings are not due to chance. The
correlation between students likely to often use peer and other tutoring and the likelihood
of seeing EOPS as very important was significant, r(32) = .50, p<.01. The effect size
(.495) is high. The correlation between students likely to often use peer and other
tutoring and the likelihood of seeing RISE as very important was significant, r(32) = .46,
p<.01. The effect size (.462) is medium to high. The correlations mean students likely to
often use peer and other tutoring were also likely to see EOPS and RISE each
respectively as very important.
In section four, question three of the survey, students were asked to rank a number
of factors they felt were important to their academic success on a scale of very,
somewhat, not very, not at all, and N/A. Tutor availability was one such factor students
were asked to rank.
Table 18
Correlation Importance of RISE/Tutor Availability Important to Academic success
Likely to see RISE as very Likely to see tutor availability as very important to their
important
academic success
Pearson Correlation
.561**
Sig
.000
N=35
df=33
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
The researcher is 99% sure correlation findings are not due to chance. The
correlation between students seeing tutor availability as very important and the likelihood
of them seeing RISE as very important was significant, r(33) = .56, p<.001. The effect
163
size (.561) is high. The correlation means students who found RISE to be very important
were also likely to find tutor availability to be very important to their academic success.
Table 19
Correlation Importance of EOPS and RISE/Importance Skill Labs
Likely to rank Skill Labs as
very important
Likely to see EOPS as very
important
Likely to see RISE as very
important
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
.587**
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
P
.000
36
34
.587 High
<.001
.540**
.001
36
34
.540 High
=.001
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with the correlations.
The correlation between likely to rank skill labs as very important and the likelihood of
seeing EOPS as very important was significant, r(34) = .59, p<.001. The effect size
(.587) is high. The correlation between likely to rank skills labs as very important and
the likelihood of seeing RISE as very important was significant, r(34) = .54, p=.001. The
effect size (.54) is high. These correlations mean students likely to rank skill labs as very
important were also likely to see both EOPS and RISE as important to academic success.
Table 20
Correlation Importance of EOPS and RISE/Satisfaction Skill Labs
Likely to be very satisfied
with Skill Labs
Likely to see EOPS as very
important
Likely to see RISE as very
important
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
.483**
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.003
35
33
.483 M-High
<.01
.506**
.002
35
33
.506 High
<.01
164
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with the correlations.
The correlation between the likelihood of students to be very satisfied with skill labs and
the likelihood of seeing EOPS as very important was significant, r(33) = .48, p<.01. The
effect size (.483) is medium to high. The correlation between the likelihood of students
to be very satisfied with skill labs and the likelihood of seeing RISE as very important
was significant, r(33) = .51, p<.01. The effect size (.506) is high. These correlations
mean students very satisfied with skill labs were also likely to find both EOPS and RISE
to be very important.
Table 21
Correlation Satisfaction EOPS/Satisfaction Academic Advising
Likely to be very satisfied with
EOPS
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=35
*=.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Likely to be very satisfied with Academic
Advising
.471**
.004
df=33
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between the likelihood of students to be very satisfied with EOPS and the
likelihood of students to be very satisfied with academic advising was significant, r(33) =
.47, p<.01. The effect size (.471) is between medium and high. The correlation means
students who were likely to be very satisfied with EOPS were also likely to be very
satisfied with academic advising.
165
Table 22
Correlation Importance of RISE/Importance of Academic Advising
Likely to see RISE as very
important
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=35
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Likely to see Academic Advising as very
important
.444**
.008
df=33
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between the likelihood of seeing RISE as very important and the
likelihood of seeing Academic Advising as very important was significant, r(33) = .44,
p<.01. The effect size (.444) is between medium and high. The correlation means
students who were likely to see RISE as very important were also likely to find academic
advising to be very important.
Table 23
Correlation Importance of EOPS/Satisfaction with Financial Aid Advising
Likely to see EOPS as very
important
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=35
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Likely to be very satisfied with financial aid
advising
.517**
.001
df=33
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between the likelihood of seeing EOPS as very important and the
likelihood of being very satisfied with financial aid advising was significant, r(33) = .52,
p=001. The effect size (.517) is high. The correlation means students who were likely to
166
find EOPS as very important were also likely to be very satisfied with financial aid
advising.
Barriers
This section provides the reader with frequency statistics and correlations
pertaining to barriers. Barriers are defined as something preventing students from
achieving success. Barriers are considered to be an independent variable. Unmet needs
may become barriers. Barriers may help indicate specific needs.
167
Table 24
Significant Correlations among Variables Related to Barriers
Socioeconomic Disadvantage
The frequency statistics and correlations pertaining to barriers include
socioeconomic disadvantage as a barrier, inadequate financial resources as a barrier,
withdrawing because of bureaucratic financial aid, and negative correlations with
withdrawing due to bureaucratic financial aid and were specific factors addressed in this
section. In section one question eight of the survey, socioeconomic disadvantage is one
168
of the categories students were asked to rate as to whether it was a major barrier,
moderate barrier, minor barrier, no barrier/no effect on success or N/A does not apply.
Socioeconomic disadvantage seen as a major barrier correlates with several other
variables including withdrawing for lack of finances, withdrawing due to restrictive
admissions practices, withdrawing because of bureaucratic academic advising,
withdrawing because of limited academic support services, seeing too many family
demands as a barrier, and finally, units enrolled and units earned. Table 25 reveals
factors correlated with socioeconomic disadvantage.
Table 25
Correlations of Socioeconomic Disadvantage with Other Factors
Socioeconomic Disadvantage &
Withdraw factors
Withdraw lack of finances
Withdraw restrictive admissions
practices
Withdraw bureaucratic academic
advising
Withdraw limited academic
support services
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
.469**
.441**
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.002
.006
40
38
38
36
.469 M-High
.441 M-High
<.01
<.01
.478**
.002
38
36
.478 M-High
<.01
.488**
.002
38
36
.478 M-High
<.01
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with the correlations in
Table 25. The correlation between socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier and
the likelihood of withdrawing because of a lack of finances was significant, r(38) = .47,
p<.01. The effect size (.469) is medium to high. This correlation means students who
considered socioeconomic disadvantage to be a major barrier were also very likely to
withdraw due to lack of finances. The correlation between socioeconomic disadvantage
169
as a major barrier and the likelihood of withdrawing due to restrictive admissions
practices was significant, r(36) = .44, p<.01. The effect size (.441) is medium to high.
This means students who viewed socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier would
also be very likely to withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices. The correlation
between socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier and the likelihood of
withdrawing due to bureaucratic academic advising was significant, r(36) = .48, p<.01.
The effect size (.478) is medium to high. This means students who considered
socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier would also be very likely to withdraw due
to bureaucratic academic advising. The correlation between viewing socioeconomic
disadvantage as a major barrier and the likelihood of withdrawing because of limited
academic support was significant, r(36) = .49, p<.01. The effect size (.488) is medium to
high. This means students who saw socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier
would also be very likely to withdraw because of limited academic support. These
correlations are significant in that students who see socioeconomic disadvantage as a
major barrier would also be very likely to withdraw because of a lack of finances,
restrictive admissions practices, bureaucratic academic advising, and limited academic
support.
Too many family demands. An additional correlation took place between
socioeconomic disadvantage seen as a major barrier and too many family demands as a
major barrier. These two variables were found in the same section in the survey (section
one, question eight).
170
Table 26
Correlation Socioeconomic Disadvantage/Too Many Family Demands
Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=40
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Too many family demands
.506**
.001
df=38
The researcher is 99% sure correlation findings are not due to chance. The
correlation between socioeconomic disadvantage seen as a major barrier and too many
family demands as a major barrier was significant, r(38) = .51, p=.001. The effect size
(.506) is high. This correlation means students who perceive socioeconomic
disadvantage as a major barrier were also likely to view too many family demands as a
major barrier.
Units enrolled/units earned. In the demographic section of the survey, students
were asked in how many units they were enrolled and how many units they had earned.
These variables correlated with socioeconomic disadvantage.
Table 27
Correlation Socioeconomic Disadvantage Seen as a Major Barrier
Units Enrolled
Units Earned
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
-.370*
.558**
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.019
.001
40
34
38
32
.37 Medium
.558 High
<.05
=.01
This researcher is 95% sure findings are not due to chance. The negative
correlation between socioeconomic disadvantage as a barrier and units enrolled was
171
significant, r(38) = -.37, p<.05. The effect size (.37) is closer to medium. This negative
correlation between socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier and units enrolled
reveals that students who saw socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier were likely
to enroll in fewer units.
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance. The correlation
between socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier and units earned was significant,
r(32) = .56, p=.001. The effect size (.558) is high. Students who had earned more units
were likely to see socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier.
Inadequate financial resources. Section one question eight of the survey asked
students to rate each characteristic listed in terms of whether or not it was a major barrier,
moderate barrier, minor barrier, no barrier/no effect on success, or N/A or does not apply.
Inadequate financial resources as a major barrier to success was one characteristic
students were to rate, which was found to correlate with a) students who were very likely
to withdraw because of a lack of finances, b) students who were very likely to withdraw
because of bureaucratic financial aid, and c) students who were very likely to withdraw
due to limited courses.
Withdraw lack of finances. Section one question nine of the survey asked
students if certain factors or issues would cause them to withdraw from class or from the
college. Options were not likely, somewhat likely, likely, and very likely. There was a
strong correlation between perceiving inadequate financial resources as a barrier and
being very likely to withdraw due to the lack of finances.
172
Table 28
Correlation Inadequate Financial Resources/Withdraw Lack of Finances
Inadequate Financial Resources
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=41
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Withdraw Lack of Finances
.528**
.000
df=39
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between students with inadequate financial resources and withdrawing
because of a lack of finances was significant, r(39) =.53, p<.001. The effect size (.528) is
high. Students who saw inadequate financial resources as a barrier to academic success
were also very likely to withdraw due to lack of finances.
Withdraw because of bureaucratic financial aid. Also found in section one
question nine of the survey was withdrawing because of bureaucratic financial aid. This
variable strongly correlated with students perceiving inadequate financial resources as a
barrier.
Table 29
Correlation Inadequate Financial Resources/Withdraw Bureaucratic Financial Aid
Inadequate Financial Resources
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=41
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Withdraw Bureaucratic Financial Aid
.631**
.000
df=39
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between perceiving inadequate financial resources as a major barrier and
173
being very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid was significant, r(39) =
.63, p<.001. The effect size (.631) was high. This means students who saw inadequate
financial resources as a major barrier were also very likely to withdraw due to
bureaucratic financial aid.
Withdraw because of limited courses. Found in section one question nine of the
survey was withdrawing because of limited courses, which correlated with inadequate
financial resources as a barrier to student success.
Table 30
Correlation Inadequate Financial Resources/Withdraw Limited Courses
Inadequate Financial Resources
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=40
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Withdraw Limited Courses
.449**
.004
df=38
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between seeing inadequate financial resources as a major barrier and
being very likely to withdraw because of limited courses was significant, r(38) =.45,
p<.01. The effect size (.449) is between medium and high. Students who saw inadequate
financial resources as a major barrier were also very likely to withdraw due to limited
courses.
Withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid. In section one, question nine asked
students how likely certain factors or issues would cause them to withdraw from class or
from the college. Being very likely to withdraw because of bureaucratic financial aid
174
services was one of the significant factors that correlated with being very likely to:
withdraw due to a lack of finances, withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices,
withdraw because of bureaucratic academic advising, withdraw because of limited
academic support, and withdraw due to limited courses. Table 31 reveals factors that
correlated with being very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services.
Table 31
Correlations Withdraw due to Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services with Other Factors
Significant Relationship with
Withdraw Bureaucratic Financial
Aid Services
Withdraw lack of finances
Withdraw restrictive admissions
practices
Withdraw bureaucratic academic
advising
Withdraw limited academic
support
Withdraw limited courses
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.574**
.465**
.000
.003
41
39
39
37
.574 High
.465 M-High
<.001
<.01
.505**
.001
39
37
.505 High
=.001
.479**
.002
39
37
.479 M-High
<.01
.511**
.001
40
38
.511 High
=.001
Withdrawing because of a lack of finances. The researcher is 99% sure findings
are not due to chance with the correlations in Table 31. The correlation between being
very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services and being very likely to
withdraw because of a lack of finances was significant, r(39) = .57, p<.001. The effect
size (.574) is high. This correlation means students who were very likely to withdraw
due to a lack of finances were also very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial
aid services.
175
Withdrawing due to restrictive admissions practices. The correlation between
being very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services and being very
likely to withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices was significant, r(37) = .47,
p<.01. The effect size (.465) is medium to high. Students who were very likely to
withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices were also very likely to withdraw due to
experiencing bureaucratic financial aid services.
Withdrawing because of bureaucratic academic advising. The correlation
between being very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services and
being very likely to withdraw because of bureaucratic academic advising was significant,
r(37) = .51, p=.001. The effect size (.505) is high. Students who were very likely to
withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services were also very likely to withdraw
because of bureaucratic academic advising.
Withdrawing due to limited academic support. The correlation between being
very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services and being very likely to
withdraw because of limited academic support was significant, r(37) = .48, p<.01. The
effect size (.479) is medium to high. Students who were very likely to withdraw due to
bureaucratic financial aid services were also very likely to withdraw because of limited
academic support.
Withdrawing because of limited courses. The correlation between being very
likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services and being very likely to
withdraw due to limited courses was significant, r(38) = .51, p=.001. The effect size
176
(.511) is high. Students who were very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial
aid services were also very likely to withdraw due to limited courses.
These correlations imply students who were very likely to withdraw because of a
lack of finances, restrictive admissions practices, bureaucratic academic advising, limited
academic support and limited courses were also very likely to do so because of
bureaucratic financial aid services.
Socioeconomic disadvantage. One final correlation with being very likely to
withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services includes socioeconomic disadvantage
seen as a major barrier, which is found in section one question eight of the survey.
Students were to rate characteristics as to whether they were major barriers, moderate
barriers, minor barriers, no barrier/no effect on success, or N/A does not apply.
Table 32
Correlation Withdraw Bureaucratic Financial Aid/Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Withdraw Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=40
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Socioeconomic Disadvantage
.583**
.000
df=38
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between being very likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid
services and viewing socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier was significant,
r(38) = .58, p<.001. The effect size (.583) is high. This correlation means students who
177
saw socioeconomic disadvantage as a major barrier, were very likely to withdraw due to
bureaucratic financial aid services.
Negative correlations – Withdrawing due to bureaucratic financial aid. Three
significant negative correlations were associated with being very likely to withdraw due
to bureaucratic financial aid. These three variables were found in section five, question
four of the survey, which asked students how much the college emphasized certain
factors. Factors that were significant included providing support needed to ensure
student success, help coping with non-academic responsibilities, and providing financial
support.
Table 33
Negative Correlations Withdraw Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services with Other Factors
Negative correlations with Withdraw
Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services
College providing support to achieve
success
College helping cope with nonacademic responsibilities
College provided financial support
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
-.440**
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.007
36
34
.44 M-High
<.01
-.437**
.008
36
34
.437 M-High
<.01
-.495**
.002
36
34
.495 High
<.01
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with all three
correlations. The negative correlation between being very likely to withdraw due to
bureaucratic financial aid services and the college’s emphasis on support was significant,
r(34) = -.44, p<.01. The effect size (.44) is between medium and high. This negative
correlation means students would be less likely to withdraw because of bureaucratic
178
financial aid services if at the same time the college were to provide support needed to
ensure student success.
The negative correlation between being very likely to withdraw due to
bureaucratic financial aid services and the college’s emphasis on helping students cope
with non-academic responsibilities was significant, r(34) = -.44, p<.01. The effect size
(.437) is medium to high. This negative correlation means students would be less likely
to withdraw because of bureaucratic financial aid services if at the same time the
college’s emphasis were to help students cope with non-academic responsibilities.
The negative correlation between being very likely to withdraw due to
bureaucratic financial aid services and the college’s emphasis on providing students with
financial support was significant, r(34) = -.50, p<.01. The effect size (.495) is high. This
negative correlation means students would be less likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic
financial support if at the same time the college’s emphasis were on providing students
with financial support.
Students who said if the college emphasized support to ensure success and helped
coping with non-academic responsibilities and financial support, they said they would
also be less likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid.
Withdrawing due to restrictive admissions practices. In section one, question
nine of the survey students were asked to rank a number of different factors that would
cause them to withdraw from class or from college. Students were asked to rank factors
as to very likely, likely, somewhat likely, and not likely. Withdrawing because of
179
restrictive admissions practices correlated with several other variables including
withdrawing because of bureaucratic academic advising, withdrawing due to limited
academic support, using public assistance to pay tuition, socioeconomic disadvantage,
and students with too many family demands.
Table 34
Correlations Withdraw due to Restrictive Admissions Practices with Other Factors
Significant Relationship with
Withdraw Restrictive Admissions
Practices
Withdraw bureaucratic academic
advising
Withdraw limited academic
support
Using public assistance to pay
tuition
Socioeconomic disadvantage
Too many family demands
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.520**
.001
38
36
.52 High
=.001
.580**
.000
38
36
.58 High
<.001
.477**
.004
35
33
.477 M-High
<.01
.441**
.418**
.006
.009
38
38
36
36
.441 M-High
.418 M-High
<.01
<.01
Withdraw due to bureaucratic academic advising. The researcher is 99% sure
findings are not due to chance with the correlations in Table 34. The correlation
between being very likely to withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices and being
very likely to withdraw because of bureaucratic academic advising was significant, r(36)
= .52, p=.001. The effect size (.52) is high. This correlation means students who were
very likely to withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices were also very likely to
withdraw due to bureaucratic academic advising.
Withdraw because of limited academic support. The correlation between being
very likely to withdraw because of restrictive admissions practices and being very likely
180
to withdraw due to limited academic support was significant, r(36) = .58, p<.001. The
effect size (.58) is high. Students who were very likely to withdraw due to restrictive
admissions practices were also very likely to withdraw due to limited academic support.
Using public assistance to pay tuition. The correlation between being very likely
to withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices and using public assistance as a major
source to pay tuition was significant, r(33) = .48, p<.01. The effect size (.477) is medium
to high. Students who were very likely to withdraw because of restrictive admissions
practices indicated they use public assistance as a major source to pay tuition.
Socioeconomic disadvantage. The correlation between being very likely to
withdraw because of restrictive admissions practices and students who see socioeconomic
disadvantage as a barrier to their success was significant, r(36) = .44, p<.01. The effect
size (.441) is medium to high. Students who were very likely to withdraw due to
restrictive admissions practices also said that socioeconomic disadvantage was a major
barrier.
Too many family demands as barrier. The correlation between being very likely
to withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices and seeing too many family demands
as a major barrier was significant, r(36) = .42, p<.01. The effect size (.418) is between
medium and high. Students who were very likely to withdraw due to restrictive
admissions practices were also likely to see too many family demands as a major barrier.
Inadequate coping skills as a barrier to academic success. In section one,
question eight asked students to rate certain characteristics that would serve as barriers to
181
academic success. Choices were major barrier, moderate barrier, minor barrier, no
barrier/no effect on success, and N/A does not apply. Inadequate coping skills were seen
as a major barrier correlating with being very likely to withdraw due to limited courses
and being very likely to withdraw due to transportation issues.
Withdrawing due to limited number of courses. Section one question nine asked
students to rank factors that would cause them to withdraw from class or the college
based on a scale of very likely, likely, somewhat likely, and not likely. Being very likely
to withdraw due to limited number of courses strongly correlated with inadequate coping
skills as a major barrier.
Table 35
Correlation Inadequate Coping Skills as Barrier/Withdraw due to Limited Courses
Inadequate Coping Skills as Barrier
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=40
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Likely to withdraw due to Limited Courses
.452**
.003
df=38
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with the correlation.
The correlation between being very likely to withdraw due to limited courses and
inadequate coping skills as a major barrier was significant, r(38) = .45, p<.01. The effect
size (.45) is between medium and high. The correlation means students who saw
inadequate coping skills as a major barrier would also be very likely to withdraw due to
limited courses.
182
Withdraw due to transportation issues. Section one question nine asked students
to rank factors that would cause them to withdraw from class or the college based on a
scale of very likely, likely, somewhat likely, and not likely. Being very likely to
withdraw due to transportation issues strongly correlated with inadequate coping skills as
a barrier.
Table 36
Correlation Inadequate Coping Skills as Barrier/Withdraw due to Transportation Issues
Inadequate Coping Skills as a
barrier
Pearson Correlation
Sig
N=39
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Likely to Withdraw due to Transportation Issues
.562**
.000
df=37
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with this correlation.
The correlation between inadequate coping skills as a barrier and being very likely to
withdraw due to transportation issues was significant, r(37) =.56, p<.001. The effect size
(.56) is high. The correlation means students who saw inadequate coping skills as a
major barrier were very likely to withdraw due to transportation issues.
Withdrawing because of transportation issues. In section one, question nine
asked students to rank how likely certain factors or issues would cause them withdraw
from class or from the college. Options such as very likely, likely, somewhat likely and
not likely were listed. Being very likely to withdraw because of transportation issues
183
correlated with being very likely to withdraw because of limited number of courses and,
as stated earlier, inadequate coping skills as a major barrier.
Table 37
Correlation Withdraw due to Transportation Issues / Withdraw Limited Number of
Courses
Withdraw
Withdraw due to limited number of courses
Transportation
Pearson Correlation
.447**
Sig
.004
N=39
df=37
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to chance with the correlation.
The correlation between being very likely to withdraw due to transportation issues and
being very likely to withdraw due to limited number of courses was significant, r(37) =
.45 p<.01. The effect size (.447) is between medium and high. The correlation means
students who would withdraw due to transportation issues were also very likely to
withdraw due to limited number of courses.
Resiliency
Section six of the survey asked students to rank from a list of factors the most
important resiliency factors with regard to their academic success. Significant
correlations emerged between resiliency characteristics including spiritual support and
scholarship/financial support; spiritual support and mentors; spiritual support and
social/community support; social/community support and role model; social/community
support and friend/peer support.
184
Table 38
Significant Correlations among Variables Related to Resiliency Characteristics
185
Table 39
Correlations between Resiliency Factors
Significant Relationships between
Resiliency factors
Spiritual Support/Scholarship
Financial Support
Spiritual Support/Mentors
Spiritual Support/Social
Community Support
Social Community Support/Role
Model
Social Community Support/Friend
Peer Support
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
.482**
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.004
34
32
.482 M-High
<.01
.478**
.536**
.005
.001
33
33
31
31
.478 M-High
.536 High
<.01
=.001
.507**
.003
33
31
.51 High
<.01
.595**
.000
34
32
.60 High
<.001
Table 39 indicates that at minimum six resiliency factors had some type of
correlation with another resiliency characteristic.
Spiritual support/scholarship financial support. The researcher is 99% sure
findings are not due to chance with the correlations in Table 39. The correlation between
spiritual support and scholarship/financial support was significant, r(32) = .48, p<.01.
The effect size (.482) is between medium and high. This correlation means students who
ranked spiritual support as an important resiliency factor for their academic success were
also likely to rank scholarship/financial support as an important resiliency factor.
Spiritual support/mentors. The correlation between spiritual support and mentors
was significant, r(31) = .48, p<.01. The effect size (.478) is medium to high. Students
who ranked spiritual support as an important resiliency factor for their academic success
were also likely to rank mentors as an important resiliency factor.
186
Spiritual support/social community support. The correlation between spiritual
support and social community support was significant, r(31) = .54, p=.001. The effect
size (.536) is high. Students who chose spiritual support as an important resiliency factor
for their academic success were also likely to rank social/community support as an
important resiliency factor.
Social community support/role model. The correlation between social/community
support and role model was significant, r(31) = .51, p<.01. The effect size (.51) is high.
Students who chose social/community support as an important resiliency factor for their
academic success were also likely to rank role models as an important resiliency factor.
Social community support/friend peer support. The correlation between
social/community support and friend/peer support was significant, r(32) = .60, p<.001.
The effect size (.60) is high. Students who chose social/community support as an
important resiliency factor for their academic success were also likely to rank friend/peer
support as an important resiliency factor.
Spiritual support resiliency factor. Spiritual support as a resiliency factor
correlated with a number of other variables including inadequate financial resources as a
barrier, the use of grants and scholarships as a source to pay for tuition and the use of
public assistance as a source to pay for tuition.
187
Table 40
Correlations Spiritual Support Resiliency with Other Financial Factors
Significant Relationship with Spiritual
Support Resiliency
Inadequate Financial Resources
Barrier
Grants/Scholarships to pay tuition
Public Assistance to pay tuition
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Sig
Correlation
.437**
.010
N
df
Effect Size
p
34
32
.437 M-High
=.01
.520**
.461**
33
33
31
31
.52 High
.461 M-High
<.01
<.01
.002
.007
Inadequate financial resources barrier. The researcher is 99% sure findings are
not due to chance with the correlations. The correlation between spiritual support as a
resiliency factor and inadequate financial resources as a major barrier was significant,
r(32) = .44 p=.01. The effect size (.437) is between medium and high. This correlation
means students who ranked spiritual support as an important resiliency factor were more
likely to consider inadequate financial resources as a major barrier.
Grants/scholarships to pay tuition. The correlation between spiritual support as a
resiliency factor and grants/scholarships used as a major source to pay for tuition was
significant, r(31) = .52 p<.01. The effect size (.52) is high. This correlation means
students who said spiritual support was an important resiliency factor were also likely to
use grants and scholarships as a major source to pay tuition.
Public assistance to pay tuition. The correlation between spiritual support as a
resiliency factor and using public assistance to pay tuition was significant, r(31) = .46
p<.01. The effect size (.461) is between medium and high. This correlation means
188
students who said spiritual support was an important resiliency factor were likely to use
public assistance as a major source to pay tuition.
Scholarship/financial support as a resiliency factor. Scholarship/Financial
support as a resiliency factor correlated with a number of other variables including grants
and scholarships as a source to pay tuition, used peer or other tutoring, used financial aid
advising, satisfied with financial aid advising, and importance of financial aid advising.
Table 41
Correlations Scholarship Financial Support Resiliency with Other Factors
Significant Relationship with
Scholarship/Financial Support
Resiliency
Grants/Scholarships to pay tuition
Used Peer or other Tutoring
Used Financial Aid Advising
Satisfied with Financial Aid
Advising
Importance of Financial Aid
Advising
* =.05 or less, **=.01 or less
Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N
df
Effect Size
p
.482**
.449**
.476**
.590**
.003
.006
.003
.000
36
36
36
36
34
34
34
34
.482 M-High
.449 M-High
.476 M-High
.59 High
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.001
.581**
.000
37
35
.58 High
<.001
Grants and scholarships to pay tuition. The researcher is 99% sure findings are
not due to chance with the correlation. The correlation between scholarship/financial
support as a resiliency factor and grants/scholarships used to pay for tuition was
significant, r(34) = .48 p<.01. The effect size (.482) is between medium and high. This
correlation means students who said scholarship/financial support was an important
resiliency factor were likely to use grants and scholarships as a major source to pay
tuition.
189
Used peer or other tutoring. The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to
chance with the correlation. The correlation between scholarship/financial support as a
resiliency factor and used peer or other tutoring was significant, r(34) = .45, p<.01. The
effect size (.449) is between medium and high. This correlation means students who said
scholarship/financial support was an important resiliency factor also said they were very
likely to use peer or other tutoring.
Used financial aid advising. The researcher is 99% sure findings are not due to
chance with the correlation. The correlation between scholarship/financial support as a
resiliency factor and using financial aid advising was significant, r(34) = .48, p<.01. The
effect size (.476) is between medium and high. This correlation means students who said
scholarship/financial support was an important resiliency factor also said they were very
likely to use financial aid advising.
Satisfied with financial aid advising. The researcher is 99% sure findings are not
due to chance with the correlation. The correlation between scholarship/financial support
as a resiliency factor and being satisfied with financial aid advising was significant, r(34)
=.59, p<.001. The effect size (.59) is high. This correlation means students who said
scholarship/financial support was an important resiliency factor also said they were very
satisfied with financial aid advising.
Importance financial aid advising. The researcher is 99% sure findings are not
due to chance with the correlation. The correlation between scholarship/financial support
as a resiliency factor and the importance of financial aid advising was significant, r(35) =
190
58, p<.001. The effect size (.581) is high. This correlation means students who said
scholarship/financial support was an important resiliency factor also said they were very
likely to see financial aid advising as important.
Quantitative Analysis Summary
Needs of American Indian Community College Students: Quantitative Analysis
Research question 1: What are the academic and personal needs of American
Indian community college students?
Quantitative analysis reveals the needs of American Indian community college
students who participated in this study to be the following:

financial aid and financial support,

academic advising through RISE and EOPS, and

peer and other tutoring and skill labs.
Services found to be important were:

RISE (by students who received financial aid and those who used public
assistance to pay for their education),

EOPS (by students who used public assistance to pay for their education; in
correlation with satisfaction with financial aid advising), the satisfaction and
importance of academic advising (RISE),

skill labs (EOPS & RISE),

tutor availability (RISE), and
191

EOPS & RISE (peer and other tutoring). Students used the following services
or resources: grants and scholarships to pay tuition; public assistance to pay
tuition; financial aid, EOPS and RISE, peer and other tutoring (in relation to
importance of EOPS & RISE).
Students were satisfied with the following services: EOPS (academic advising) skill labs
(important EOPS & RISE); and RISE (students who had earned units). Students were
satisfied with financial aid advising.
Perceived Barriers for American Indian Community College Students: Quantitative
Analysis
Research question 2: What are the perceived barriers that American Indian
students face at the community college level?
Quantitative analysis reveals the perceived barriers of American Indian
community college students who participated in this study to be the following:

socioeconomic disadvantage,

inadequate financial resources,

lack of financial support,

bureaucratic financial aid services,

restrictive admissions practices,

limited academic support,

limited number and variety of courses offered,

bureaucratic academic advising,
192

too many family demands,

transportation issues, and

inadequate coping skills.
A significant finding revealed that if the college emphasized support, financial support,
and help coping with non-academic responsibilities, Native students would be less likely
to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services.
Students who were more likely to see inadequate financial resources as a barrier
to academic success were more likely to withdraw from a class or the college due to lack
of finances. Furthermore, students who perceived socioeconomic disadvantage as a
barrier would be more likely to withdraw from classes or the college because of a lack of
finances, bureaucratic financial aid services, restrictive admissions practices, bureaucratic
academic advising, and because of limited academic support. Moreover, students who
were more likely to use public assistance as a resource to pay tuition were also more
likely to withdraw because of restrictive admissions practices.
A number of factors could conceivably work together to prevent Native student
success. For instance, students who were likely to withdraw because of a lack of
finances, restrictive admissions practices, bureaucratic academic advising, limited
academic support, and limited number and variety of courses were also likely to do so
because of bureaucratic financial aid services. Being likely to withdraw due to restrictive
admissions practices and due to limited academic support also correlated with too many
family demands, which was likely seen as a major barrier.
193
Resiliency Characteristics that Contribute to Student Success: Quantitative Analysis
Research question 3: What are the resiliency and other characteristics employed
by American Indian community college students that contribute to student success?
Resiliency is defined as the skills or processes by which people cope with
oppressive conditions. Quantitative analysis revealed students were likely to feel the
following characteristics were important: scholarship/financial support, spiritual support,
social/community support, friend/peer support, serving as a role model, and obtaining
mentoring as a resiliency characteristic.
Scholarship/financial support refers to skills or knowledge necessary to obtain
financial support. This resiliency characteristic strongly correlated with the use,
importance of, and satisfaction with financial aid advising as well as with using peer and
other tutoring. This resiliency characteristic also correlated with students who used
grants and scholarships as a resource to pay tuition. This would make sense because
students have obtained skills necessary to obtain these resources and incorporate them
with the resiliency characteristic scholarship/financial support. Students enrolled in units
correlated with financial support as a resiliency factor. Units earned also correlated with
financial support as an important resiliency factor.
Spiritual support as a resiliency characteristic has to do with the ability to cope
with factors that may be out of one’s control. Students who ranked scholarship/financial
support as an important resiliency factor were also likely to rank spiritual support as a
factor. Students indicated that spiritual support as a resiliency characteristic was likely
194
used when they were also likely to face inadequate financial resources as a barrier.
Spiritual support resiliency also correlated with students who were likely to use public
assistance and grants and scholarships as a major resource to pay for tuition. Students
who were enrolled in more units were less likely to view spiritual support as a resiliency
factor.
Social/community support as a resiliency factor is defined as receiving support
from the larger community including social groups, religious groups, and cultural groups
and or tribes. Spiritual support as a resiliency characteristic correlated with
social/community support as a resiliency factor.
Friend or peer support or obtaining emotional support from friends or college
peers as a resiliency factor and utilizing role models as a resiliency characteristic both
strongly correlated with social/community support as a resiliency factor.
Although mentors or mentoring as a resiliency factor correlated with spiritual
support as a resiliency factor, this resiliency characteristic had a negative correlation with
students enrolled in units, indicating that enrolled students were not likely to see
themselves as mentors as a resiliency characteristic.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The qualitative data includes three focus group transcripts. These transcripts were
read and coded by the researcher. Questions asked during the focus group sessions were
based on the research questions: 1) What are the academic and personal needs of
195
American Indian community college students? 2) What are the perceived barriers
American Indian students face at the community college level? 3) What are the
resiliency and other characteristics employed by American Indian community college
students contributing to student success? Specific questions asked during the focus group
directly related to the research questions. Focus group question 13, which equated to
research question 1 about academic and personal needs asked students, what are the
needs of Native students at the community college level? Focus group questions 7 and
12 equated to research question 2 about barriers by asking students, what do you see as
the barriers to obtaining academic success and what are the greatest barriers that could
prevent you from achieving your goals? Focus group question 10 equates to research
question 3 about resiliency by asking students, what are your greatest resources that you
believe positively impact your academic success?
196
Table 42
Qualitative Needs, Barriers and Resiliency Characteristics Chart
Needs
College Support &
Recognition
Academic Counseling
Financial Aid
Native Student Outreach
Recruitment & Retention
More Caring Culturally
Competent Professors
Support from Family
Attending College
Native Speakers and
Mentors from the
Community Telling their
Stories
Drug and Alcohol
Counseling Services
Programs like RISE and
other support services like
Labs
Student Organizations
Peers
Barriers
Education System
Low Population
Lack of Recognition
Admissions & Records
(paperwork/policy)
Lack of Financial Resources
or Inadequate Finances
Financial Aid Services
(paperwork/policy)
Limited Courses
Racial Stereotypes
in Course Content
reinforced by Professors
Lack of Tribal & Family
Support
Condescending Tutors
Resiliency
Resistance/Survivance
Academic Support from
Professors
Family & Community
Cost of Books
Transportation
Program Support
(RISE)
Native American
Studies
Peer Support
Needs of American Indian Community College Students: Qualitative Analysis
Drawing from the patterns of responses, qualitative analysis reveals the academic
and personal needs of American Indian community college students who participated in
the focus groups of this study to be: support and recognition; academic counseling;
197
financial aid; Native student outreach; recruitment and retention; more caring, culturally
competent professors; support from family members attending college; Native
speakers/mentors from the community to tell their experiences and success stories; drug
and alcohol counseling on campus; programs (RISE) and other support services like the
writing lab and math lab; student organizations and peers.
Need - College support & recognition. There were patterns of responses by
Native students who felt invisible and needed more support and recognition. In addition,
students expressed a need for the campus community to have more Native events
happening and more Native student outreach. The following examples express the need
for Native student recognition and the connection between this and their needs being
pushed aside.
I think Native students probably the hardest part, at least for me from a Native
perspective being at a community college, is that there is just a lack of
recognition. And here it is so much greater here. We have so much more than
other places do because we have a ton of Native students and we have a ton of
Native studies teachers, many of whom themselves are Native American, and we
have a lot of other faculty members who do genuinely care about the concerns of
Native American students, but at the same time there is just a general -- and I
mean it's the same sort of disregard that's just through the rest of the community
that they don't see it as disregard and that's the hardest part is getting them to see
it as how much Native students are being ignored and how much their needs are
being pushed aside enough to then recognize that Native students need more -- we
need some sort of support system that is stuck into the hardwiring of the education
system itself and not just through finding our own community in the school.
(Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7, pp. 30-31, lines 21-13)
Also, even by campus community acknowledging Native American students in
the community or in the city and promoting those services on campus that would
be great help for the American Indian students. (Focus Group 2, Female Native
Student 9, p. 27, lines 3-6)
198
Two additional female Native students also felt more recognition, support, and events
needed to take place (Focus Group 3, Female Native Students 11 & 12, p. 17, lines 8-10).
Need - Native student outreach & programming. Patterned responses from
students revealed a need for Native student outreach and programming on campus. This
coincides with the need for recognition. In the example, one student expressed a need for
more native students, faculty, and administrators.
More Native faces are needed not just students but faculty and administrators.
(Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 2, p. 33, lines 19-25)
One of the biggest things that this community college needs is Native outreach.
(Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 2, p. 34, lines 1-5)
The school maybe could do something to recognize on a school-wide basis Native
American -- California Indian Day or some of the other days we have. (Focus
Group 1, Male Native Student 2, p. 42, lines 2-6)
I know in my tribe we consider new years in May. And if we could have like a
Native new years celebration…And just a lot of things that we do traditionally to
acknowledge passing time and our world, if the school could recognize that, that
hey, this is a special day for us. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 2, p. 42,
lines 16-21)
More Native student outreach was a theme discussed by a few students.
And I think that would bring more students to come out of high school and
everywhere else that would come join this community college if there was more
advertisement about the Native American studies program. (Focus Group 2,
Female Native Student 8, p. 27, lines 7-10)
Few programs are mentioned like Tribal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) and California Indian Manpower Consortium (CIMC) to assist Native students.
So the interaction between community and education at the college level, even at
the high school level, because…there is no outreach really. There's a few
programs and there's a few individuals that come through from TANF or whoever
199
that can go, "You can go to college," because there's some educated women,
Indian women especially, in some of the programs for TANF and CIMC that will
help students. And through proxy it ends up getting to them where they get help.
(Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 13, p. lines )
I would have to say with the needs of the Native students, there's a lot of Indian
kids that are out there that are not in school now and that need to be in school.
And if you would just -- if the community -- the Indian community would come
out and just reach out to them and say, "You know, school is good. You are
going to become something in life. Just go for it and do it. Go day by day and
take it slow and you can accomplish something in life. Just don't listen to what
your family says or think you have to stay at home and babysit kids or any of that.
Go to school! (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 8, p. 32, lines 1-10)
Need - Native American studies division. A few students who participated in this
study felt some kind of department or division with an administrative leader like a chair
or dean would improve recognition and fulfill the needs of Native students. Students had
ideas of creating a Native American Studies Division including any disciplinary field like
Ethnic Studies, History, Art, etc. which would bring recognition to Native students on
campus and would also bring about a greater awareness of contemporary Indian issues
not just to students but to professors, administrators, and staff assisting Native students in
their success.
So what I think community college can do to better Native Americans is to give
us our own department, to have our own dean, more classes, because right now
we're in an ethnic department and we're shifted all around. I mean, how are
Native Americans going to get an identity when they don't even have a
department. How about a Native American history department with a dean and
more than one teacher to teach Native American studies. (Focus Group 1, Male
Native Student 5, p. 41, lines 4-12)
This ideology to create a department relates to identifying who or what has power to
make change. For Native students to call for a department means they are thinking about
200
ways in which they can get their needs met, address and reduce or eliminate barriers, and
reinforce resiliency characteristics.
I think the biggest part for me is if there was just more in classes about Native
Americans and Native American people because even in history classes where I
have had really respectful teachers, really knowledgeable teachers, there's always
the Native Americans. There's not this people over here and this people over
here. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7, p. 34, lines 3-10)
In the previous example, Female Native Student 7 in Focus Group 2 is concerned Natives
are being lumped into one category in history classes when tribes and their experiences
are so very diverse. There is a need for a program dedicated specifically to teach
accurate information about Natives.
Need - Education/cultural competency. Several students who participated in this
study felt cultural competency training and education is needed for faculty, staff, and
administrators. In the first example, the student compares her experience with professors
who have accurately portrayed Natives versus professors who have not.
Cultural understanding and knowledge of Native presence today is one of the
needs that Native students are facing at community college especially from the
professors. Like you mentioned, our history professors, I've had a history
professor where he spoke very well about Native presence and I felt like he really
understood and he really spoke truth about what happened with Native Americans
and how they survived through all that as opposed to a history teacher that I'm
taking currently where he mentioned Native Meso-Americans as Mexicans, as
just plain Mexicans. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 9, g. 32, lines 1120)
So that's just a need that as a student I feel that professors should know how to
speak culturally and respectively about cultures. (Focus Group 2, Female Native
Student 9, pp. 32-33, lines, 21-3)
201
In the following example, the student discusses how Native students are
generalized in terms of their culture and identity. She continues to explain how some
professors side with the textbook over the student’s knowledge and experience.
Furthermore, this student points out that some professors just do not care about making
changes even when they are made aware of the inaccuracies. These professors are
complacent in their ignorance, which creates a stressful situation for the student and
negatively impacts their success.
There's no differentiation between Native Americans. We are one lump sum and
there's no differences between us. We are all the same people. And that is
frustrating as well as I have had classes where I have all but stormed out pretty
much. I have left during class and I have had conversations with my teachers
about I really disagreed with what you said. I really do not appreciate you saying
this because it's not true. And I've had my teachers basically say, "Well, I'm
sorry. I don't know where you got your knowledge from, but that is not in the
textbook. And it's just so -- in situations like that it's so frustrating because not
only is it that people don't know, it's people don't care. You get that sense that
people don't care even when you are there screaming in their faces about this is
wrong. This is not true. This is what actually happened. You could stand in their
face and scream at them and they just look at you like why are you telling me
this? I'm not going to change what I'm saying. I don't care. So that is very -- it's
very difficult to succeed in class then because like I said before you have to pretty
much just do whatever they want you to do and not actually do what you know.
(Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7, pp. 34-35, lines 10-26, 1-5)
Student 7 continues to discuss resolutions to the problem of culturally incompetent
professors, and she advocates for educating the educator as well as the review or
evaluation of the curriculum.
And so I think it would just be -- it would just be so much greater if we had
teachers -- like if there was some way that the teachers could get together maybe
with a Native studies teacher and go over that first part of the curriculum in their
history classes and then the teachers could say -- I mean the Native American
studies teachers could say, "Well, you know it would be better if you worded this
202
like this in your anthropology class or if you included this in your history class,"
just things like that. I've had anthropology teachers, too, where we'll be talking
about a certain way that two cultures clash and then somebody will always
inevitably bring up the example of, oh, like this with the Native Americans with
the Sioux or with the Cherokee or whatever and my teacher would be like, "Oh,
yeah, but we all know how that ended, ha, ha, ha." And I know laughter is a selfdefense mechanism. I know it's a way to push off the blame, but you can't help
but sit there in class and just look like, oh, my God, did that just happen? Is this
real life? And everybody's laughing because it's all -- it's a joke. It's a Hollywood
movie and it's not real. And people don't -- they're comfortable in their
knowledge of that. And if that's what we keep teaching them I feel like -- if we
give them no other reason -- if the only place that they are getting this knowledge
is their Native studies classes and not their history classes, not their poly-sci
classes, not their anthropology or archaeology classes, the only place they're
getting that is in their Native studies classes, it's not going to make that much of a
difference. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7, pp. 35-36, lines 9-16, 1-12)
In the previous example, the student also expresses frustration with her fellow
students and professors alike in their acceptance of media stereotypes and how it may be
an exercise in futility to educate because of how immense and entrenched the problem
has become, especially when it seems like only a few people are working to dispel
stereotypes.
I think the whole student body, the school, the instructors, need to have some
cultural education. And I think if you teamed that with the community, there's a
million elders that would love to educate other cultures and students and faculty
members to help their people. They would love to. I know some right now that
would love -- that are in their 70's, 80's, even up into the 90's that would love to
come and be part of a group that educated instructors and started a community
effort to better their people to make the kids more self-sufficient and educated.
(Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 13, p. 23, lines 13-22)
Need - Academic counseling. General support comes in the form of academic
counseling, financial aid, RISE, and other support services and caring professors. One
203
student recommended a specific counselor be available just for Native American
students.
I’m trying to transfer, so I have to do the whole long counseling session, not the
15 minute one. So that was pretty frustrating for me to get that. (Focus Group 1,
Male Native Student 5, p. 16, lines 5-7)
I think that the community college can better serve American Indian students by
establishing a location or a specific counselor that's designated to assist Native
American students with questions, guidance, and anything that they may have -we need a place where we can feel comfortable knowing that this person
understands a little more about us, our culture, our people, that will be able to
better understand what we're trying to get across and articulate to them because
some people just like I said don't -- … some people are very intelligent, but when
it comes to wording what you want to say and talking to somebody that you …
you don't really say what you want to say to that person when you're there.
You're just basically trying to get past that meeting or just uncomfortable with
them. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 3, pp. 38-39, lines 11-26 & 1-2)
Need - Financial aid. The need for financial aid is significant for Native students
who participated in this study because of high poverty levels experienced by Native
families.
The greatest resource that I believe positively impacted my academic success was
I guess I'd say the financial aid and being able to tap all those resources. That
allowed me to really let go of anything that I thought in my mind I would need to
keep my energy on so I could pay bills, have gas, live life. Acquiring those
resources allowed me to let go of a lot of people and a lot of things that I was
dealing with in order to focus on making a change in life. It's hard to do that
when you're worried about paying those bills, electricity, cable or even having a
decent vehicle to drive, all these little small things. (Focus Group 1, Male Native
Student 3, pp. 27-28, lines 19-26 & 1-5)
They really help with the cost of living and stuff because as a student you're not
working a lot, so you have to mainly rely on financial aid and the BOG fee waiver
to get you through. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 5, p. 11, lines 1-4)
Several times, Native students expressed they depend on financial support.
204
I also use -- I'm on Native American TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families) and county food stamps and Medi-Cal and those resources have been
very helpful in providing for my books, my school supplies, my childcare and just
in general academic counseling and support through both Native American
TANF. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 10, p. 6, lines 11-16)
The financial aid helped me because I couldn’t afford it. I got approved for
financial aid and [peer student] helps me a lot with it. (Focus Group 3, Female
Native Student 12, p. 4, lines 16-18)
One Native student summed up the support needed to achieve academic success:
I think financial support, cultural support, community support all ties in to your
educational goal where the community recognizes and validates your efforts and
believes in what you're doing is huge and mentoring from other students in an
organized way. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 13, p. 17, lines 11-15)
Need - Caring professors. For Native students who participated in this study, the
need for caring professors is important to Native student success. The following example
sums up the general consensus of focus group one.
I think it would be beneficial to have more professors … that legitimately care or
show that they care about your success in reaching your goals. (Focus Group 1,
Female Native Student 4, p. 36, lines 1-3)
Need - RISE & other support services. Support services were important to Native
students who participated in this study. Students used the RISE program, the Native
American Studies Program, and the Indigenous People’s Club, a student organization.
RISE and they were very helpful. I didn't do much there, but I utilized them for
what I needed, to order my books and stuff. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student
3, p. 10, lines 4-6)
205
RISE is significant for students because not only does the program operate a
textbook loan program, but students in all three focus groups indicated RISE assisted
them with academic counseling.
I started going to RISE this semester and [Blank Advisor’s Name] has been
helping me pick my classes and stuff. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 11,
p. 4, lines 7-8)
Me in my education, like RISE, the math lab, tutoring, the LRC, just my peers
that I'm involved with in certain clubs or organizations have really have always
supported me and pushed me towards not giving up and I really appreciate all the
services that there are available to us on campus. (Focus Group 2, Female Native
Student 9, p. 6, lines 1-5)
Native American studies program, … and the RISE program. (Focus Group 2,
Female Native Student 10, p. 6, line 16)
Sac City Indigenous People's Club a lot for counseling, for rides, for books, for
tutoring, counseling, for helping me with my sobriety. (Focus Group 1, Male
Native Student 2, p. 8, lines 23-24)
Need – Peers. Peers were found to be important to student success for Native
students who participated in this study.
Students have helped me find books, find classrooms, professors, proper
professors, helped me find out a lot of resources and stuff that are available to me,
scholarships and things like that. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 2, p. 9,
lines 22-24)
In the previous example, the student mentions how students assist other students
and professors are also mentioned as a resource important to student success.
Most of us, the only reason we survive in the educational environment is because
some other student has come before us or is in there with us that has already gone
through and fought the battle themselves so they can help you out. (Focus Group
3, Female Native Student 13, p. 17, lines 16-20)
206
Emotional support because if I slack off, then I don't want to do my work, so if I
post something on Facebook, you're like, "Well, shouldn't you be doing your
project? or if I'm on the phone with him, he'll be like, "You need to do your
homework and stop procrastinating." And [Blank] she's like, "If I find out you're
not doing your work I'm going to text you and call you all the time so you do it.
(Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 12, p. 12, lines 17-24)
Students with previous experiences with the educational system were mentioned as
resources, and peer pressure to say in school and succeed was also important.
Need - Speakers/mentors from the community. Students identified
speakers/mentors from the community as vital to supporting Native students and
encouraging success. The following example was chosen because it was very specific.
I think having speakers and telling people about their experiences … that just
opened so many eyes for so many people who had no idea what was happening
and stuff. And people are still talking about it. And it's really nice to know that
there's people like that that are still out there that experience it. They're not all
dead. They're not all gone. They're not just stories. So I think speakers and just
overall I think mentors, right, that people who have walked in your shoes, who
have experienced the stuff that you do. (Focus Group 1, Female Native Student 4,
p. 44, lines 15-26)
Need - Drug and alcohol counseling. Even though only one Native student
suggested the need for drug and alcohol counseling on campus, Native students in focus
group 1 concurred with this idea.
I think maybe drug and alcohol counseling is one thing this school could use, not
just for Natives but just in general. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 2, p. 34,
lines 17-21)
Summary. In summary, qualitative analysis connects and reinforces several
quantitative findings related to needs including: academic advising, financial aid, family
support, programs like RISE and other support services like the writing and math labs
207
and peer support. Additional needs include speakers/mentors from the community and
drug and alcohol counseling on campus.
Perceived Barriers for American Indian Community College Students: Qualitative
Analysis
Qualitative analysis reveals American Indian students who participated in this
study perceive barriers to be the system itself, admissions and records, lack of financial
resources or inadequate finances, financial aid services, limited courses, lack of tribal and
family support, racial stereotypes, condescending tutors, transportation, and the cost of
books.
Barrier - System itself. Native students who participated in focus groups revealed
problems with the system itself. There are several types of barriers embedded within the
system. The fact that Native students perceive themselves as insignificant to the college
administration because of their low enrollment numbers is a significant barrier.
Also, I'd have to agree that administration -- I think that being a member of the
Native American population on campus has sort of put us -- I guess we're in the
gutter because we have such low numbers compared to other students, one
percent of the population. We're kind of last on the list of the hungry mouths that
need to be fed so we don't have a lot of weight I guess you would say on campus.
We don't have a lot of political power even when it comes to administration
because of our numbers. So that has been extremely frustrating. (Focus Group 2,
Student 10, p. 9, lines 4-13)
The lack of recognition serves as a somewhat insurmountable barrier.
I think Native students probably the hardest part, at least for me from a Native
perspective being at a community college, is that there is just a lack of
recognition. And here it is so much greater here. We have so much more than
other places do because we have a ton of Native students and we have a ton of
Native studies teachers, many of whom themselves are Native American, and we
have a lot of other faculty members who do genuinely care about the concerns of
208
Native American students, but at the same time there is just a general -- and I
mean it's the same sort of disregard that's just through the rest of the community
that they don't see it as disregard and that's the hardest part is getting them to see
it as how much Native students are being ignored and how much their needs are
being pushed aside enough to then recognize that Native students need more -- we
need some sort of support system that is stuck into the hardwiring of the education
system itself and not just through finding our own community in the school.
(Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7, pp. 20-31, lines 21-13)
According to one student, the administration has hindered her success by
preventing Native students from organizing events.
For me administration has kind of hindered my success here on campus. When
you want to organize for something or you just want to try to do something you
always have to kind of -- there's always some logistics or some little some school
politics that stop you in the way of trying to do whatever you feel like doing.
That with, what do you call it, the food services on campus. They have really
stopped us from getting funding for our organizations and clubs on campus. So
together they have really – they don't help much. (Focus Group 2, Female Native
Student 9, p. 8, lines 1-10)
According to another student, threats to cut the Native American Studies Program are a
significant barrier because it connects to low Native student enrollment numbers and the
lack of recognition of Native students.
The educational services that have been frustrating for me have definitely been
basically the effect of congress' decisions on our programs. I think the looming
threat of my college losing my major, my program, the Native American Studies
program, has been something that has really caused me a lot of stress throughout
my time here. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 10, p. 8, lines 12-16)
One student mentioned the system is not user-friendly so students must ask for help and
this may be a cultural issue.
System itself doesn’t really help you unless you go and seek out and we’re not
used to asking for help because it’s a shame to expect it. So if you ask for help,
it’s like you’re almost reinforcing that you’re not as good if you have to ask for
help. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 13, pp. 4-5, lines 25-4)
209
Barrier - Admissions and records. Native students who participated in this study
revealed Admissions and Records procedures created barriers to student success
primarily because of clerical error or because of an apparent disconnect between services.
Mine is the records department. For some reason or other they keep changing my
major and keep messing up my financial aid. (Focus Group 1, Female Native
Student 6, p. 16, lines 8-10)
I don't seem to get anywhere when I go to like admissions and records or even
business services or anything like that or financial aid. (Focus Group 1, Female
Native Student 4, p. 10, lines 18-21)
Admissions and records, I've had issues with them as far as one teacher dropped
me from the class and I was still attending. And then I got slammed by financial
aid for a bill. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 5, p. 15, lines 22-25)
I picked up a second major, political science, to kind of I guess cover myself as
far as that is concerned so that -- because the majors are similar, however, that
caused me issues to where when financial aid made the decision -- our college
made the decision to implement new policies and guidelines I wasn't qualified to
transfer. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 10, p. 8, lines 17-22)
Barrier - Lack of financial resources or inadequate finances. Lack of financial
resources, are revealed to be a barrier experienced by Native students.
It's hard for you to be a student and be successful and concentrate on what the
professor is telling you when in the back of your mind they're going to cut your
power off the next day and you're trying to figure out in the back of your mind,
"Who am I going to call to borrow this money? Who can I call? What can I do?"
And I don't really want to call anybody to beg for money because I'm a grown
person, but it's hard for me to pay bills because I'm not focused. (Focus Group 1,
Male Native Student 3, p. 28, lines 5-13)
I mean, definitely financing is difficult because I live by myself and because of
the stuff I kind of already mentioned with financial aid it just makes it more
difficult to figure out how to pay for stuff. And there have been several semesters
where I've nearly had to sit out. And at the very last moment I figure out how to
make it happen, but just because I couldn't -- all last semester I worked 40 hours a
week and had two jobs, one of which was full time and the other one was part-
210
time. It's just hard to make things meet” (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student
7, p. 10, lines 7-14).
Example: “Money and housing. That why I dropped out two semesters ago
because I started school and then I got a job, so then I dropped out of school and
then I got my own apartment and then I lost my job, then I lost my apartment and
then I was like bouncing around. Now I'm in school again. So I'm hoping this
housing situation -- I get my financial aid so I can get my housing. So it's kind of
like that's one of the main things. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 11, pg.
15, lines 14-21)
Barrier - Problems with financial aid services. Several Native students exposed
problems they had with financial aid services. Some of the issues are rooted in a lack of
understanding compounded by policies instituted through Financial Aid Services
requiring students to determine and deal with their own financial aid issues without much
assistance.
Example: “When I first came here I would have to say financial aid was the most
frustrating for me” (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 5, pg.15, lines 15-16).
Example: “and they’re not going to go out of their way to help you, ever” (Focus
Group 3, Female Native Student 13, pg. 7, lines 7-8).
One Native student revealed issues with trying to get financial aid and having only a
GED.
I would say I'm still having trouble I'd say with financial aid because there's areas
I didn't understand and people that were helping me didn't understand. So like
last semester I went through the whole semester without any financial aid. I got
all my money at the end when school was out and I was struggling through the
whole time. And it made it harder for me to even complete last semester because
of the financial situation. And financial aid, no one was giving me the correct
answers. And I'm yet to get a Cal grant in effect because I came in with a GED
because I did leave school and I took my GED -- went back three years later, took
my GED test, paid for it, got it, didn't use a GED for anything. Just went on
another 10 years of life (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 3, pp. 13-14; lines
11-26, 1-5). And I still haven't even got funding for half of --the Cal grant money
211
hasn't came in. And I probably won't get that until next year. And I'm in constant
contact right now with them myself. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 3, p.
14, lines 10-13)
According to Native students who participated in this study, just learning about
how to fill out the paperwork and the type of documentation expected is problematic for
students because every student has different circumstances and there are different forms
and different policies for every situation. In addition, when paperwork has been lost by
financial aid services, it falls to the student to obtain the documents and resubmit them,
once again causing undue hardship.
I'd say that financial aid was hard and learning about what you gotta do and
knowing your particular circumstances because everybody is different. (Focus
Group 1, Male Native Student 3, p. 14, lines 20-22)
Because they keep on giving me the runaround about everything because I don’t
have my high school diploma or GED or anything. I had to keep on taking the
ability to benefit test and never passed it. Every time I took it I was like one or
two points off from passing. And then I finally got my six credits because you
can get financial aid if you have six or more college units, so I finally had that,
but then when I went to go apply, I didn’t have like the certain percentage you
need, like 75% or more because I have like three W’s on my record from like
years ago and –yeah, they just keep on giving me the runaround and I don’t like it.
(Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 11, p. 5, lines 14-25)
I would say financial aid, as well, just because of everything she said, all of the -you have to turn it in and then records and then proof and then this and then
they're lost or they never received them, that kind of stuff. (Focus Group 1,
Female Native Student 4, p. 15, lines 1-5)
The following Native student explains a problem within the federal financial aid
policy requiring a set age limit to be independent and expects parents to provide financial
resources to supplement student support. This issue plagues Native students and their
212
families who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage because the parents’ income is counted
against the student.
I'm at an age where I'm legally considered an adult, but according to the
government I don't qualify to be my own person in the eyes of financial aid. I still
go under my parents, but I don't have any connection with my parents. And it's
really difficult to figure out how to -- pretty much for the last two years I've been
paying for college by myself and that's really hard because I don't get -- I do get
the BOG fee waiver, which is the fantastic thing about living in California, being
a California resident, but I don't get any federal aid and so everything like that I
do have to pay for by myself and that's the hardest. (Focus Group 2, Female
Native Student 7, p.7, lines 1-11)
Another connection is made by a student participant between the funding California
provides students and the number of units a student can take. New policies are restricting
the number of units a student can take having an impact on Native student success rates.
My barrier would be finance and space. The finance part is the economy is bad.
They're raising prices on tuition and units, so the State is forking out more money
for people that are on BOG fee waivers so they're shortening the amount of units
that you can take. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 5, p. 19, lines 10-14)
Finally, one student explained her frustration in following all the policies and
trying to deal with financial aid services and admissions and records, which ultimately
reveals a disconnection between departments.
Definitely financial aid and it’s because their policies are set in stone in their
mind. And a lot of it is I think because when you go, you go to the counter and
you’re not allowed to ever speak to a supervisor so you have students.…so they
can’t make really any decisions for you so they’re just feeding you the
information that’s written on the screen in front of them (Focus Group 3, Female
Native Student 13, p. 6, lines 4-8 & 9-11). So now I’m on academic probation
and then I’m finally---it’s halfway through the semester or pretty well good three
weeks into the semester and I still haven’t gotten financial aid or my student loans
because they dragged their butt in admissions and records, too, with handling my
appeal. Even though the appeal was granted…financial aid still hasn’t cleared it.
So it’s frustrating because you do everything—even when you follow all the rules
213
and dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s there’s always some other paper or some
other thing and they do not notify you. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student
13, p. 6, lines 16-26)
Barrier - Limited courses. Another barrier was the limited type and availability of
courses in which Native students could enroll.
And the further along I get in my education the less I have to choose from in order
to graduate or transfer. I'm sort of working around the college's schedule. Well, I
am working around the college's schedule. And there are a lot of conflicts with
my schedule, my son's schedule and a daycare schedule. (Focus Group 2, Female
Native Student 10, p. 12, lines 11-17)
And it's challenging to find the time and to find classes that fit with my major
because you're only allowed so many units after you max out because you get -- I
had to put in an appeal --for example, for lifetime units you're only allowed -policies and procedures from the federal government has changed to where if you
go over 72 credit hours at the junior college level you have to explain that and
why you haven't gotten your degree yet. It all comes down to finance really and
not enough course work offered via online, for example, or at night. (Focus
Group 3, Female Native Student 13, pp. 8 & 9, lines 19-25 & 1-2 & 7-9)
Barrier – Lack of tribal support and lack of family support. The lack of tribal and
family support serve as barriers to success for Native students.
I think when I first started college I felt like I was alone. I felt like I was alone in
everything. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 10, p. 17, lines 23-24). As far
as my family is concerned, my family has not always been supportive. I get a lot
of, "When are you ever going to graduate?" "Do you really think that you're
making a wise decision?" Choosing law at this time in my life seems nearly
outrageous to some of my family members, but luckily what my family can't do
for me my community can. And what my community can't do for me my family
can. And I think what I've learned in between there is that I have through my
tribe and through learning more about myself and culture is that my people have
been through far worse than community college and that my relatives sacrificed
their lives. They paid in blood so that I can be here. (Focus Group 2, Female
Native Student 10, pp. 18-19, lines 19-5)
I think one of the greatest barriers for me personally and as much as it hurts me to
say this is probably my family. And I have spent several years trying to come to
214
terms with not only what they want but who they want me to be in terms of who I
want myself to be and who I know I am. And I have come to the realization,
which is really kind of heartbreaking, the last probably year, about a year ago
from now, that the only way I'm going to be successful and the only way I'm
going to feel good not just about what I'm doing but also about myself is to
basically cut them out of my life. And I have just recently started to feel strong
enough to … to start to make my own family, to see that just because you're born
with these people, you don't have to be stuck with them. Your family is whoever
is around you, who you make that connection with. It is --family is fluid. You
can make it for yourself. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7, pp. 29-30,
lines 16-6)
My older family members, they wish I would have a career now or be married and
be at home and have kids, all this stuff. Weird. (Focus Group 2, Female Native
Student 9, p. 17, lines 4-7)
Now, with my family there is only one member in my family that does support it
and that's my brother, but when it comes to my mom she doesn't. And when it
comes to my dad's side they never did. So if it wasn't for him I wouldn't be in
college. If it wasn't for him pushing me, I wouldn't be in college (Focus Group 2,
Female Native Student 8, p. 16, lines 14-19). So I guess -- it's just hard because I
don't have that much connection with my tribe itself. It's more through my family
and what is a few people that I still do know, but going to college and funding it
and doing all those things almost by yourself -- I feel like college is something
that you need a network of people to back you up and when you don't have that
it's a little difficult to even keep what your goal is in mind (Focus Group 2,
Female Native Student 8, pp. 16-17, lines 21-3). Family…That is a barrier for
me, as well. It's very hard. If I was to listen to what the majority of them would
say daily it would get to me and it would cause me not to want to come to school.
(Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 8, p. 31, lines 14-18)
And my tribe, I don't talk to them because I asked them if I could get money for
my books and they never called me back. And then I called them again and they
never called me back. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 11, p. 9, line 18)
My mom, like she doesn't think I'm going to be able to finish. She doesn't think
I'm going to stick with it. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 12, p.10, lines
1-2)
215
Barrier - Stereotypes and biased course content. Another barrier impacting
Native students is stereotypical course content and the promotion or acceptance of
stereotypes in the classroom.
We’re just kind of marketed as these people that once were. And as you can see
we still are. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 2, p. 41, line 24). A couple
anthropology classes I've taken I've had to point out that we still exist. When they
speak of an ancient people, I'm like, "Those are my people and I'm a descendant
of them. They weren't wiped out. We're still here.” (Focus Group 1, Male
Native Student 2, p. 42, lines 2-6)
And I think also for me history classes and political science courses and
astronomy courses, science courses, that are not respectful of culture tend to leave
me feeling maybe isolated and as if my "religion" isn't being respected in the
classroom, which makes it difficult for me to learn from an objective point of
view because I'm not being respected as an individual. (Focus Group 2, Female
Native Student 10, pp. 9-10, lines 20-1)
And in terms of obtaining academic success, it's hard like … it's hard when you
are in a history class and the version of history that you're being taught and
expected to spit out onto paper is completely different from the version that
you've been taught. So it's always a struggle between do I tell the truth or do I
want to pass this class. And it's hard when you know what you know and you
know what is honest, but you want to get a degree kind of because science
classes, too, history classes, political science classes, even social studies classes,
some of the things are just either -- there is nothing about any sort of Native
American culture in there or what is in there is very stereotypical, very abstract,
very generalizing and often not in the most constructive way. And so it's always
hard. I've had several classes where I've had to -- I've talked to my teachers and
my teachers have said, "I'm sorry, but this is the curriculum. You have to do
this." So I have basically lied in order to get "A" on a paper or on an exam or
something, so it does very much feel like you're being ignored. Yeah, in
anthropology classes, the same thing. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7,
pp. 10-11, lines 15-26 & 1-14)
We’re still here. We might be one percent or so called 1.5 percent of the
population, but we're here. And we're not only here in the world, but we're here at
the university. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 12, p. 15, lines 2-5)
216
'Cause last semester I was talking to my friend who was taking a history class and
a sociology class and they didn't have the right facts about Natives. And that's
even in college, even in the books that they use. (Focus Group 3, Female Native
Student 11, p. 21, lines 12-15 & 17-18)
Barrier – Condescending tutors. A significant barrier impacting Native student success
was condescending math tutors.
I would say the math tutors have been the most frustrating. I used to think I had a
good concept of math. And then going in there they honestly almost shattered my
confidence in my math. They were extremely condescending. And I find myself
to be an intelligent person. I don't like being talked down to. (Focus Group 1,
Male Native Student 2, p. 12, lines 6-7)
And I mean there's been some specific classes that I've had trouble with. And
obviously there's always a teacher, there's always a tutor who really just doesn't
get why you don't get it or doesn't get why you can't do this. (Focus Group 2,
Female Native Student 10, p. 7, lines 12-15)
Barrier – Cost of books. The costs and availability of books are a significant
barrier to Native student success.
I'd say a barrier -- just recently a couple of classes that have -- the books, the
availability of books, that's kind of always been an issue with me. And even like
coming in and like you reserve them and stuff, sometimes they're not available for
copying or for whatever. (Focus Group 1, Female Native Student 4, p. 18-19,
lines 23-2)
Barrier – Lack of transportation. According to a few Native students who
participated in this study, issues with transportation impact Native student success.
A lot of times transportation is hard to get here, but I know I have to be here. I
can't miss days or else like I won't make it to where I'm going to be in life so I
would have to say that. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 8, p. 11, lines 1519)
I actually travel a distance to come to City also. For the first two years that I came
here I lived in Fair Oaks and I took the bus and light rail every day to -- City is in
South Sacramento and it was worth it. This is the college that carries my
217
program. There are Indians everywhere, but unfortunately there aren't Native
American studies everywhere. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 10, p. 24,
lines 1-7).
Summary. Qualitative analysis connects and reinforces quantitative findings
related to barriers including problems with bureaucratic admissions and records
(paperwork/policy), lack of financial resources or inadequate finances, problems with
financial aid services (paperwork/policy), and limited course offerings. Barriers
included, according to one student, “I’d say just the simple bureaucracy” (Focus Group 1,
Student 2, p. 17, line 9). Additional significant data within the focus groups included
lack of support from one’s tribe and family, racial stereotypes within the curriculum
reinforced by the lack of cultural competency of professors and fellow students, as well
as condescending tutors and the cost and availability of books and transportation. In
addition, data revealed an interesting concept about Native students feeling
uncomfortable asking for help.
Resiliency Characteristics Contributing to Student Success: Qualitative Analysis
Resiliency
Qualitative analysis reveals the resiliency characteristics employed by American
Indian community college students who participated in this study to be family and
community, resistance/survivance, and awareness and ability to use resources (for
example, programs like RISE).
Sources of motivation and support: Family and community. Relying on the
support of family and community was revealed to be a resiliency characteristic.
218
Additional information reveals that when family cannot be relied upon for support,
students turn to their community.
My greatest resources that possibly impact my academic success would be my
girls because I don't know I guess once you have kids you kind of forget about
yourself. So that's definitely something that keeps me going. And it actually at
the same time helps you to remember yourself because you have to keep going for
them so it would be my girls. (Focus Group 1, Female Native Student 4, pp. 2829, lines 25-26)
And my cousin, [Blank], he was -- 100 percent I contributed (sic) me being here
because of him just because he opened it up for me. I seen him as an example. I
was like he's doing it and I can do it, too, because me and him, we grew up
together. He's one year younger, but we always were competitive. We always
played hard. We always -- I knew that if he could do it, I could do it because I
seen him do it as an example and that motivated me. (Focus Group 1, Male
Native Student 3, p. 18, lines 2-10)
My family, I feel like they support me…. my single mother, who has raised me all
our lives without our father, she supports me all the way and supports me the
most. She's always -- when I need a shoulder to cry on, when I need someone to
talk to, my mom is always very supportive and I'm very grateful for her. (Focus
Group 2, Female Native Student 9, p. 17, lines 4-11)
So my community has been a huge factor in my success. I guess you could say
that through community college and the Native community I've created family. I
have chosen family that in every aspect of my life I guess take up slack. What I
can't do, someone in the Native community can (Focus Group 2, Female Native
Student 10, p. 17, lines 18-22). I have not made it one single day since I started
college, and I'm sure I never will again, make it one single day without the help of
my community. And the interesting thing about that is it's always been here. The
community has always been here. I think it's just tapping in and realizing that we
belong to a circle that's much larger than ourselves. (Focus Group 2, Female
Native Student 10, p. 18, lines 13-18)
Sources of motivation and support: Resistance/survivance.
Resistance/Survivance is a resiliency characteristic Native students bring with them
219
because of historic and contemporary trauma associated with colonization, oppression,
and forced assimilation.
I feel that being Native we're representing something more than ourselves. We're
a nation that has been murdered and killed and we're still alive. And what better
way to prosper than to at least get an education and to show other Natives that it's
possible to succeed in this new world. (Focus Group 1, Female Native Student 6,
p. 32, lines 7-12)
So I think that my tribe -- the pride in being a Tslalagi woman has really pushed
me. So on those days where I might not necessarily be able to reach out for
support and I guess affirmation, I can look inside. I can find that strength within
myself. So, yeah, I am supported by my family, my community and my tribe very
much so. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 10, p. 19, lines 6-11)
Sources of motivation and support: Professors. Although professors were
mentioned as a barrier in relation to stereotypical course content and cultural
incompetency, professors were also seen as a source of support for Native students.
I would say my greatest resource has also been my professors. (Focus Group 1,
Female Native Student 4, p. 10, lines 17-18)
Since I'm a new student, the support that I get and the motivation has come from
my professors and family members that are attending. (Focus Group 1, Male
Native Student 3, p. 9, lines 22-24)
And it's great to have not only like that academic support network but to have a
personal -- be on that personal level with your professors and with the students in
your classroom that you know there is somebody for you there if you need them
to be there. And I think having those resources, even if you never have to use
them, in the back of your mind is such a morale boost and feels like so much
support just to know that it's there. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7, p.
26, lines 7-14)
Peer and program support: Friends, RISE and Native American studies. Support
services including the RISE program were found to be assets in terms of resiliency as
well as fellow students or peers.
220
I use the whole gamut, RISE, learning center, computer lab and math lab. And I
think most of the support and the services that were brought to my attention was
from my peers. (Focus Group 1, Female Native Student 6, p. 11, lines 11-14)
Greatest resources are definitely the people that I meet who know what's going on
and who know how to use the resources. (Focus Group 1, Female Native Student
4, p. 10, lines 22-24)
I got to say RISE and fellow students. RISE pretty much has a lot of fellow
students where I go to get questions answered. [Blank] has been a resource in
getting -- I don't even go to counselors anymore. I just go to [Blank]. (Focus
Group 1, Male Native Student 3, p. 27; lines 7-11).
The Native American studies program has been extremely helpful. It has been a
huge resource. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 10, p. 6, lines 6-7)
What motivated me to keep going to this college was the Native studies program
and that the way [Blank] does teach them. She teaches them very well and I
learned a lot from her classes that I didn't know coming here. She showed me a
different way of looking at things that I never would have looked at them before
that way. So thanks to [Blank] and her Native studies program that I did learn a
lot. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 8, pg. 21-11, lines 21-2)
And definitely RISE, which is a resource here on campus, which stands for
Respect Integrity, Self-determination and Education. And they're great help.
They provide us with computers, with books, which we can check out for a
semester, counselors. It's a great social environment and they have computers and
stuff. So those have greatly impacted my academic success. (Focus Group 2,
Female Native Student 9, p. 27, lines 9-21)
me in my education, like RISE, the math lab, tutoring, the LRC, just my peers that
I'm involved with in certain clubs or organizations have really have always
supported me and pushed me towards not giving up and I really appreciate all the
services that there are available to us on campus.(Focus Group 2, Female Native
Student 9, p. 6, lines 1-5)
And they don't have to be a teacher. They don't have to be a counselor. They can
be a fellow student in one of your classes and they will do what they can to help
you be successful or at least get through that tough spot that you're in. And it is.
It's just a sense of community. We are here. We are all going through the same
thing. We can do this together. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7, p. 28,
lines 8-14)
221
Would say there's a lot of Native students I hadn't met in the Native program that
actually will sit together and have study groups that help me. So just studying
with my culture itself, it really helps because they kind of look at it as there's a lot
of Indians that shouldn't be going to school or they're not smart enough to go to
school, but we are smart enough to go to school and we can do this all together, so
I really enjoy that. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 8, p. 28, lines 15-22)
The other day I was doing a presentation to elementary school kids about the
importance of college and there was a little girl who was like, "I'm a Pueblo
Indian." And I was like, "Oh, really?" And she goes, "Yeah." She said, "I want to
study Native American culture." I was like, "You know, we have a Native
American studies program on this campus." And her eyes glowed. She was just
so -- she was so happy. I knew she was so happy. I had never seen a kid so
happy in my life. It was so cute. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 9, p. 37,
lines 11-19)
Qualitative analysis connects and reinforces quantitative findings of community
and peer support as well as program support. Family support resiliency and the
resistance/survivance resiliency characteristic were not found to be significant in terms of
any correlations in the quantitative data but were found to be significant resiliency factors
within the focus group discussions.
Qualitative Summary
Qualitative analysis reveals the academic and personal needs of American Indian
community college students who participated in the focus groups of this study to be the
following:

support and recognition,

academic counseling,

financial aid,
222

Native student outreach,

recruitment and retention,

more caring professors,

support from family members attending college,

peers,

Native speakers/mentors from the community to tell their experiences and
success stories,

drug and alcohol counseling,

programs (RISE) and other support services like the writing lab and math lab,
and

student organizations.
Qualitative analysis connects and reinforces several quantitative findings related to needs
including: academic advising, financial aid, family support, programs like RISE and other
support services like the writing and math labs and peer support.
Qualitative analysis reveals the perceived barriers of American Indian students
who participated in this study to be the following:

the system itself,

problems with admissions and records (paperwork),

lack of financial resources or inadequate finances,

problems with financial aid services,

limited courses,
223

tribe and family,

racial stereotypes,

condescending tutors,

transportation, and

the cost of books.
Qualitative analysis connects and reinforces quantitative barrier findings
including: problems with bureaucratic admissions and records (paperwork), lack of
financial resources or inadequate finances, problems with financial aid services,
transportation, and limited course offerings. Barriers included, according to one student,
“I’d say just the simple bureaucracy” (Focus Group 1, Student 2, p. 17, line 9).
Additional significant data within the focus groups included: lack of support from one’s
tribe and family, racial stereotypes within the curriculum reinforced by professors and
fellow students, as well as condescending tutors, the cost and availability of books, and
transportation. In addition, data revealed an interesting concept about Native students
feeling uncomfortable asking for help.
Qualitative analysis reveals the resiliency characteristics employed by American
Indian community college students who participated in this study to be: family and
community, resistance/survivance, awareness and ability to use resources (example:
programs like RISE), and academic as well as peer support. Qualitative analysis
connects and reinforces quantitative resiliency findings including friend/peer support.
Family support resiliency was not found to be significant in term of any correlations in
224
the quantitative data but was found to be of mixed significance in terms of support as a
resiliency factor within the focus group discussion.
Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative Results
Ultimately, students need to succeed academically to reach their goals. Students
have needs, face barriers, and employ resiliency characteristics to cope with any given
situation. Needs revealed by students included support and recognition, academic
counseling, financial aid, Native student outreach, recruitment and retention, more caring
culturally competent professors, support from family members attending college, peer
support Native speakers/mentors from the community to tell their experiences and
success stories, drug and alcohol counseling, programs (RISE) and other support services
like the writing lab and math lab, student organizations and peers.
Barriers revealed by students included problems with bureaucratic admissions and
records (paperwork and policy), lack of financial resources or inadequate finances,
problems with financial aid services (paperwork and policy), and limited course
offerings. Barriers were, according to one student, “I’d say just the simple bureaucracy”
(Focus Group 1, Student 2, p. 17, line 9). Additional significant data within the focus
groups includes lack of support from one’s tribe and family, racial stereotypes within the
curriculum reinforced by professors and fellow students, as well as condescending tutors
and the cost and availability of books. In addition, data revealed an interesting concept
about Native students feeling uncomfortable asking for help.
225
Resiliency factors employed by American Indian community college students
who participated in this study were resistance/survivance, awareness and ability to use
resources (example: programs like RISE), as well as peer support. Family support
resiliency was not found to be significant in terms of any correlations in the quantitative
data but was found to be a significant resiliency factor within the focus group
discussions. What was not found to be significant for the students in this study was precollege academic preparation or high school experience in the context of community
college student needs, barriers, and resiliency characteristics.
226
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
We survive war and conquest; we survive colonialism, acculturation, assimilation;
we survive beating, rape, starvation, mutilation, sterilization, abandonment,
neglect, death of our children, our loved ones, destruction of our land, our homes,
our past and our future. We survive, and we do more than just survive; we bond,
we care, we fight, we teach, we nurse, we bear, we feed, we earn, we laugh, we
love, we hang in there no matter what. (Allen, 1992, p. 43)
This chapter summarizes the study’s purpose, research questions, methodology,
and data, bringing to contemporary educational discussion Native American community
college students’ needs, the barriers they face, and the resiliency characteristics they
employ to be successful. This study explored the experiences of 45 American Indian
students at Sacramento City College and focused on student success by obtaining
information via survey and focus groups. Using three core theories: Tribal Critical Race
Theory, Community Cultural Wealth, and Reziliency Theory, a framework and equation
were created to address the following research questions:

What are the academic and personal needs of American Indian community
college students?

What are the perceived barriers American Indian students face at the community
college level?

What are the resiliency and other characteristics employed by American Indian
community college students contributing to student success?
227
The purpose of this study was to determine the self-perceived needs, barriers, and
resiliency characteristics impacting the academic success of American Indian community
college students at Sacramento City College and provide further insight into the
American Indian community college student experience. The researcher identified needs
and resilient factors in Native students’ lives and gathered student opinions about barriers
experienced in the attempt to obtain academic success. Resiliency strategies and barriers
experienced by students will serve as factors that represent the extreme ends of a
spectrum of variables impacting student success. Several factors established in the
literature were explored in this study including family involvement and support,
community involvement and support, pre-college academic preparation or high school
experience, financial support, faculty support and coursework, and, finally, institutional
commitment and support. Factors inhibiting and contributing to Native student success
were determined. Needs, barriers, and resiliency characteristics were reviewed.
Theoretical Framework Issue
Additional issues arose when the researcher began to analyze the quantitative and
qualitative data. The inclusion of the Cultural Community Wealth concept within the
larger driving theoretical framework was problematic. Survey and focus group questions
specifically related to the research questions about needs, barriers, and resiliency
characteristics. None of the questions dealt directly with the different types of capital
used by students to achieve academic success. Therefore, it was difficult at best to
228
attempt to code data from both the survey and focus groups into the different categories
of capital. When this was attempted with the limited data that discussed resources, there
seemed to be too much overlap between the different types of capital. The researcher
began to speculate this occurred because certain types of capital fill in where other types
are lacking, but this could not be supported with consistent data. It also was apparent that
much of the data about capital was found within the resiliency characteristics data. It is
recommended by this researcher that an additional study be done specifically to
determine diverse types of capital and where it comes from and in what category it
should reside, i.e., is it a resiliency characteristic or a need? Does a lack of capital equate
to a barrier? Future studies should delve into the connections between Yosso’s Cultural
Wealth Model and needs, barriers, and resiliency characteristics.
Even though Yosso’s Cultural Wealth Model did not directly apply to this study
because of researcher oversight to include specific terms within the survey and focus
group questions directly related to the different types of Yosso’s capital, the cornerstone
of Yosso’s framework originates from a strengths-based theoretical perspective, which
was present in this study. Strengths-based theory focuses on the strengths of the
individual and assets of the community to deal with problems or issues that arise
(Hammond, 1996; Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009). A strengths-based theoretical lens, when
applied to education, creates a shift from deficit thinking and blaming the victim for their
own victimization. A strengths-based approach is more generalized than Yosso’s
Cultural Wealth Model but applies to the same notion that students come to educational
229
institutions with specific strengths, and it behooves the educational system to utilize these
strengths to address the challenges students face within the system. In hindsight, this
researcher should have included the strengths-based theory as part of the overall
theoretical framework because the core notion of applying what students already know,
the strengths and coping mechanisms or resiliency techniques students possess, to their
current educational experience is at the heart of this study.
Findings
Findings of this study are reviewed in context of the theoretical framework and
applied in the student success equation:
(Needs Being Met – Barriers) + Resiliency Characteristics = Student Success
Equation check-in boxes appear at the end of different sections to reveal specific needs,
barriers, and resiliency characteristics. In addition, partial applications of the equation
are inserted in specific areas to garner the full effects of applying the equation to specific
issues.
This researcher took into account specific institutional barriers as determined and
discussed by Brayboy (2006), i.e., deficit model thinking, assimilation strategies, the lack
of cultural competency or understanding and finally institutionalized racism stemming
from colonialism.
230
Meeting Students Needs
Native students have specific needs found to be significant to their academic
success. These needs fell into three categories: family support, financial support, and
college support/services. As discussed below, all three of these factors are found to be
important to Native student success, as discussed in the literature.
Family Support
Family support is a significant need contributing to the academic success of the
Native American community college student. In the 2008 study by Guillory and
Wolverton, family was the most significant factor in terms of persistence. In addition to
providing much needed financial support, family reinforces connection to culture or
cultural knowledge, part of Brayboy’s (2006) TribalCRT theory. Cultural knowledge is
passed from generation to generation and is a source of power. When cultural and
academic knowledge combine, it can serve as a resiliency characteristic (Brayboy, 2006).
Support from family members attending college. Family members with college
experience serve as role models to show Native youth a college education can be
achieved and is worth it (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Jackson & Smith, 2001).
Students in this study discussed the importance of family members who attended college
at the same time and served as a support system, helping out their cousins or sisters with
paperwork or with just navigating the system. This finding coincides with the literature
identifying family support as a major success factor for American Indian students (Brown
& Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Dodd et al., 1995; Falk & Aitken, 1984; Lin et al., 1988;
231
Tierney, 1995). Families are the support system that reinforces and encourages members
to stay in school. The educational background of family members, especially their
college experiences (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Dodd et al., 1995; Jackson &
Smith, 2001) has been found to be important in the literature. In the case of this study,
family members who were attending college were found to meet Native student needs
and are a significant source of support.
Equation Check-in
Need = Supportive Family
With Knowledge About the Education System (Bonus Point)
Financial Support
The type and amount of financial support can determine whether or not a student
goes to college. Based on quantitative data, students in this study indicated they were
likely to receive grants and scholarships and used these in addition to public assistance to
pay tuition. Students who were provided with financial support were less likely to
withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services.
Financial aid. Financial aid is greatly needed by most American Indian students
because many of these students experience poverty (Belgrade & Lore, 2003; Gilbert,
2000; Kerbo, 1981; Powless, 2008). A majority of the participants in this study fell
below the $20,000 mark and almost one-fourth of these students fell into $0-2000 range.
Financial aid allows for access and opportunity to achieve academic goals (Cabrera et al.,
1990; Cabrera et al., 1993; Nora, 2003; Ramirez, 2011; Stampen & Cabrera, 1988).
232
Academic achievement is dependent upon many variables and funding or
financial aid is one of those. Adequate funding can alleviate stress about paying rent and
for much needed school supplies. This allows the student to focus on their coursework
instead of worrying about how they will pay their bills. Because financial aid is a critical
need, it is imperative it arrives on time and is accurate, otherwise the simplest
miscalculation can become a barrier.
Financial aid was found to be a significant need in relation to academic student
success for students in this study. Students indicated that because they were not working
a lot and were taking classes, financial aid, especially the BOGG Fee waiver, helped
them stay in school and impacted their academic success. In addition, students revealed
if they had enough financial support to pay their bills, they would be better able to
concentrate on their studies and not on balancing college classes with a job and family
demands. Although many did this as well, they indicated financial aid was a much
needed, necessary, and helpful resource. Students also recognized the connecting factors
between financial support, cultural support, and community support in order to reach
their educational goals and attain academic success.
Equation Check-in
Needs = Financial Support + Cultural Support + Community Support
Financial aid advising. Financial aid advising was found to be quantitatively
significant in that students used it; they found it to be important and were satisfied with it.
But the only issue as they indicated in the focus groups, they rarely received financial aid
233
advising from the financial aid office, but relied primarily on their peers and family for
support through the process of obtaining financial aid.
Equation Check-in
Need = Financial Aid or Adequate Financial Support +
Informed Financial Aid Advising
(Financial Aid Advising Usually Received From Family Members or Peers)
In Guillory’s (2002) study, administrators in institutes of higher education
identified only two persistence factors including adequate financial support and academic
programs tailored to meet American Indian student needs (Lindley, 2009). Both of these
factors are institutionally focused and both have been found to be important to Native
American student success through this research study.
College Support
College support fulfills specific student needs including academic counseling or
academic advising, culturally competent advisors and professors, recognition, outreach,
and programming. A significant quantitative finding was students who had support from
the college, financial support, and help coping with non-academic responsibilities would
be less likely to withdraw due to bureaucratic financial aid services.
Equation Check-in
Need = Support from College + Financial Support +
Help Students Cope with Non-Academic Responsibilities
234
Academic counseling. Counseling services are one of the most important
contributors to student success, if counselors are trained appropriately (Cole & Denzine,
2002; Kleinfeld et al., 1987). Counselors can fill specific needs of Native students.
Counselors can serve as mentors if they are willing to learn about the various and unique
cultures of the students they serve, specifically Native students. Counselors assist
students in choosing a program of study and in suggesting specific courses where they
believe the student will thrive and possibly find peer support (Schmidtke, 2008).
Counselors can meet student needs by helping them understand the policies and
procedures of the institution and by providing referrals to a variety of services that can
support students (HeavyRunner & DeCelles, 2002; Hornett, 1989; James, 1992; Kleinfeld
et al., 1987; Ortiz & HeavyRunner, 2003; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995).
General support comes in the form of academic counseling. One Native student
in this study indicated academic counseling sessions longer than 15 minutes were hard to
schedule. According to the California Community College Student Success Task Force
(2011), community colleges in California generally have a ratio of 1 counselor to 8001800 students. So when students state they experience frustration when it comes to
academic advising or counseling, they mean it. One student indicated a solution to the
problem:
Example: “I think that the community college can better serve American Indian
students by establishing a location or a specific counselor that's designated to
assist Native American students with questions, guidance, and anything that they
may have -- we need a place where we can feel comfortable knowing that this
person understands a little more about us, our culture, our people, that will be able
to better understand what we're trying to get across and articulate to them because
235
some people just like I said don't -- … some people are very intelligent, but when
it comes to wording what you want to say and talking to somebody that you …
you don't really say what you want to say to that person when you're there.
You're just basically trying to get past that meeting or just uncomfortable with
them. (Focus Group 1, Male Native Student 3, pp. 38-39, lines 11-26 & 1-2)
This idea provides consistency with one specific counselor to address individual
Native student needs, but this counselor would be required to be culturally competent and
know about the many tribal nations and contemporary Indian issues. In addition, this one
counselor could be one of several Native student specialists on campus who would be
able to determine and meet the contemporary needs of Native students and provide them
with information and access to internal and external resources.
Equation Check-in
Need = One Native Culturally Competent Counselor to Serve All Native Students
Cultural competency training. Cultural competency is an important concept in
education today. To be culturally competent, one must know about oppression and social
justice issues as they pertain to ethnic minority groups and how they complicate
everything from economics to math, to art and how they further impact student success
and achievement. It is important for professors who speak as authorities on their subject
matter to include information about, contributions of, and experiences of all people, not
just the dominant cultural group.
236
Equation Check-in
Need = Cultural Competency Intervention & Training for
Professors, Administrators & Staff
To continue to learn new information and to address stereotypes
When professors speak as authority figures on certain subjects and students know
more about these topics than the professor, sometimes the professor has a negative
experience and does not know how to handle this type of situation. They view the
student as being combative or disruptive which ties into various stereotypes. At this
juncture students lose all respect for their professor and this becomes a barrier. This is
discussed more in the barrier section. Students need culturally competent professors who
continue to learn new information about their disciplines and become culturally aware of
the experiences and contributions of diverse groups within their discipline in order to
speak with authority on diverse groups.
Caring professors. Studies reveal time and again that professors impact student
success (Cole & Denzine, 2002; Dodd et al., 1995; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995). Professors
can motivate students and give advice on how to access resources on campus. Professors
have great influence on student perceptions of the campus climate, whether or not it is a
racist environment, and how they see themselves in relation to this, as victims of
discrimination or as empowered to resist the oppression (Brown & Robinson Kurpius,
1997; Hornett, 1989). Professors can be culturally sensitive and apply this to their
237
teaching style to reach more students. As reinforced in the literature, students indicated
that more caring professors would assist in their academic success. This was also a
significant finding in this study. Students in this study felt there were uncaring
professors, a point addressed as a barrier in a later section.
Equation Check-in
Need = Culturally Competent Caring Professors
Native student recognition, outreach and programming. Through voicing their
needs, Native students also thought about how student recognition, outreach, and
programming could be implemented, and the effort or power that needed to enact this
type of change. Students suggested the development of a Native American Studies
Department or, in this case Division, with an assigned administrator, a dean. This
division would include multiple disciplines like Ethnic Studies, History, and Art and
would not only provide students with more diverse courses to take, but would bring
recognition to Native students on campus. In addition, a greater awareness of
contemporary Indian issues would be brought to campus and fellow students, professors,
administrators and staff to better assist Native students in their academic success because
they would have the power of a division to support the needed change.
This is one idea that could be considered by the institution, but it would require a
major structural change in the way departments and divisions are created. At this time,
Sacramento City College groups certain departments (with a chair or administrative
leader) associated with similar disciplines together and places them within divisions
238
under one administrator, a dean. The institution may want to assess different options and
how to better evaluate and meet student needs.
Equation Check-in
Need = Native Student Recognition + Outreach + Programming
Native students revealed they felt powerless and invisible. They conveyed that
more support and recognition was needed for them as a group. In addition, students
expressed a need for the campus community to have more Native events happening or a
Native student presence and more Native student outreach.
I think Native students probably the hardest part, at least for me from a Native
perspective being at a community college, is that there is just a lack of
recognition. And here it is so much greater here. We have so much more than
other places do because we have a ton of Native students and we have a ton of
Native studies teachers, many of whom themselves are Native American, and we
have a lot of other faculty members who do genuinely care about the concerns of
Native American students, but at the same time there is just a general -- and I
mean it's the same sort of disregard that's just through the rest of the community
that they don't see it as disregard and that's the hardest part is getting them to see
it as how much Native students are being ignored and how much their needs are
being pushed aside enough to then recognize that Native students need more -- we
need some sort of support system that is stuck into the hardwiring of the education
system itself and not just through finding our own community in the school.
(Focus Group 2, Student 7, pp. 30-31, lines 21-13)
Of significance in the above student quote was the need for the institutionalization of
programming, outreach, and services recognizing Native students and their needs. With
Native programming, invisibility would decrease and Native students would have a
presence on campus. This invisibility is linked to institutionalized racism and is
discussed further within the barriers section.
239
Equation Check-in
Need = Institutionalization of Native Student Programming, Outreach and Services
to Recognize Native Student Needs
Figure 10. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model
Recruitment and retention. There is strength and support in numbers. Native
students themselves expressed concern about the non-existent outreach to or the need for
more recruitment and retention of Native students at Sacramento City College. Of
significance was that fact students also recognized that not only their numbers in terms of
Native student enrollment were low, but they also saw Native people were
underrepresented in terms of faculty and administrators. This is important because the
literature reveals students should have access to mentors of their same ethnic group to be
able to relate and network within the system. Students also expressed concern there was
no outreach to Native students in high schools in the local Sacramento and surrounding
240
areas. Because Native students rely on each other, there is an imperative need for more
Native students to attend college.
Equation Check-in
Need = Native Student Recruitment and Retention + More Native Faculty, Staff &
Administrators to Serve as Mentors + Outreach to Local High Schools to Recruit
Support for and from Native student organizations. Native student organizations
are made up of both Native and non-Native students. Native students serve as peer
support in that they too may be experiencing the same or similar scenarios as other
Native students and can sympathize and provide support to their peers. Having someone
else like you who is going through the same difficulties actually helps with developing
coping skills and with perseverance or persistence. Students can observe the actions of
other Native students and see which outcome is most productive. Non-Native students or
peers become allies who can also support and inform Native students. Native student
organizations function to meet the needs of this student group because these students feel
the college does not meet many of their needs; college administrative support for Native
student organizations is complicated.
Student organizations are formed to meet the needs of students and/or address
specific issues not being addressed on campus by the administration, faculty, and staff.
The college administration wants students to feel free to express themselves and supports
the development of student clubs and organizations. But from a Native student’s
perspective, there seems to be a need by the institution to restrict the actions of student
241
organizations through bureaucratic means to regulate resources and protect the image of
the institution. The result is the institution is viewed by the student as working against
the efforts of the student organization. This translates for the Native student into ‘the
institution does not care’ or worse yet, ‘the institution is racist’ and will do anything
through bureaucratic means to prevent the student organization from having cultural
events on campus. This perception is important to understand and ties into the feelings
students have about being invisible or that the institution does not recognize the needs of
Native students.
Native students need to be recognized and their perceptions need to be validated
because this connects to practical applications by the institution to meet Native students’
needs. One recommendation by a Native student in the focus groups was to have the
institution permanently integrate Native cultural events, speakers, workshops, and
activities within the structure of the institution. This researcher highly recommends that
all institutes of higher education integrate culture and diversity into the very fabric of the
college climate, from teaching and learning to programming so students can feel
comfortable in their learning environment, which will allow them to reflect more on the
content of the subjects they are learning and, in turn, will lead to their success. This
relates back to best practices pedagogy.
242
Equation Check-in
Needs = Administrative Support For Native Student Organizations + Clear
Communication Between College & Student Clubs + Native and Non-Native Peer
Mentoring & Support + Recognition & Validation of Native Students + Practical
Application Within the Structure of the Institution, i.e., Programming
Will Change Campus Climate
Involvement of and networking with external Native community. Successful
student programs often link the students to their community (Kirkness & Barnhardt,
1991). Both the student and the community benefit from this connection. Hands-on
experience and future career connections are but a few of the benefits to the student. The
community also benefits from volunteer labor and has the opportunity to make
connections to a future employee. Businesses and organizations can view the actual
product of the education system, the student, and voice their concerns or their amazement
about the skills the student has learned. By connecting with the external community,
business representatives can have a say in the skills future employees will need so
students can find employment after graduation.
This is especially true for Native students seeking to become employed with their
tribes (Schmidtke, 2008). By bringing in speakers from the external Native community,
Native leaders become more vested in the education system preparing the workers of
tomorrow, and students become motivated in knowing there will be lucrative careers in
store. Additional benefits of incorporating the external Native community include an
243
enrichment of the campus community by infusing cultural awareness. This one action
assists Native students in their pursuit of academic success by impacting the campus
climate, thereby making Native students feel visible, validated, and more at home, like
they exist and have a right to exist within this environment.
Equation Check-in
Need = Involvement and Networking with External Native Community + Bring in
Resources from the Native Community to Meet Native Student’s Needs
Drug and alcohol counseling. One student in the focus groups suggested there
was a need for Native student drug and alcohol counseling because drugs and alcohol
have such an impact on the Native community. Currently, the Sacramento Native
American Health Center has several Native-focused sobriety programs. A leader on
campus could network with this organization to hold meetings for Native American
students at Sacramento City College.
Services. Even though students have identified a few services like academic
advising or counseling and financial aid services/advising as having an immense impact
on Native student needs, additional services were found to be important, such as skill labs
(writing and math) and peer/other tutoring. Programs that offered many of these services
included RISE and EOPS. RISE was used by students who received financial aid and by
those who used public assistance to pay for their education. In the data, RISE was found
to be important and was associated with academic advising, skill labs, and peer/other
tutoring. Students praised RISE over and over again for the resources and support the
244
program provides, especially the assistance with academic advising and obtaining
textbooks. RISE would be a good place to begin to make changes for Native students on
campus. This will be discussed later in recommendations for practice.
Equation Check-in
Need = Services: EOPS, RISE, Tutoring, Skill Labs, Textbook Check Out Program
Summary. Several needs were expressed by students who participated in this
study. These needs fell into one of three categories: family support, financial support, or
college support/services. Significant needs were support from family members attending
college, financial support and advising, and college support in the forms of academic
counseling, cultural competency training, caring professors, Native student recognition,
outreach and programming, Native student recruitment and retention, support for Native
student organizations, involvement and networking with the external Native community,
drug and alcohol counseling, services like RISE and EOPS who provide advising, labs
and other resources.
Barriers
Barriers prevent or block student success. When viewed within Brayboy’s (1996)
TribalCRT theory, barriers in education are related to widespread racism and social
injustice embedded within the institution (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Russell, 1992;
Solórzano, 1997, 1998; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Solórzano & Yosso, 2000,
2001, 2005). Educational institutions are not objective, racially neutral, or based on merit
245
or equal opportunity (Crenshaw, 1989, 1993; Delgado & Stefancic, 2000; Delgado
Bernal, 2002; Ramirez, 2011; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002; Villalpando, 2003). It
must be recognized that students of color continue to be marginalized and oppressed as
evidenced by the achievement gap (Nevarez & Wood, 2011) and through inconsistent
policy and practice (Yosso, 2005). Because racism is widespread and enduring, it is a
“central rather than a marginal factor in defining and explaining individual experience”
(Russell, 1992, pp. 762-763). Oppression is pervasive, persistent, and can be overt or
covert in nature (Sherover -Marcuse, n.d.).
The TribalCRT framework assists in explaining pre-existing barriers that impact
American Indian students. The pre-existing barriers are included in the Student Success
Equation [(Needs Being Met – Barriers) + Resiliency Characteristics = Student Success)]
and encompass deficit model thinking, assimilation strategies, the lack of cultural
competency or understanding, and, finally, institutionalized racism stemming from
colonialism.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Deficit Model Thinking + Assimilation Strategies + Lack of Cultural
Competency/Understanding + Institutionalized Racism Stemming from Colonialism
It is important to note that quantitative data did not reveal anything about racism
or stereotypes. It was only when students began to feel comfortable that they could open
up and begin to discuss it. Focus group data revealed racism and stereotypes as being
significant barriers interlocking with other barriers students experienced. Oppression and
246
assimilation strategies must be recognized as playing a role in Native students’
experiences in higher education. Assimilation has become part of the structure or very
system of western education.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Racism + Stereotypes + Oppression + Assimilation
Internal versus external barriers. Barriers like bureaucratic financial aid services
or admissions practices, which are arcane or difficult to understand, comprehend or
fathom, hinder Native student success and are internal and controllable through the
college. Other barriers that fall into this category are the system itself, which is linked to
the perpetuation of racial stereotypes, specifically making Native students an invisible
minority on campus; stereotypes within the course curriculum or content reinforced by
culturally incompetent, uncaring professors; limited number and variety of course
offerings; condescending tutors; the costs and availability of books; and transportation
issues.
247
Equation Check-in
Internal Barriers = Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services + Arcane Admissions
Practices + System Itself Linked to Perpetuation of Racial Stereotypes Through
Course Curriculum or Content + Native Students Invisible Minority + Culturally
Incompetent, Uncaring Professors + Limited Number & Variety of Course Offerings
+ Condescending Tutors + Costs & Availability of Books + Transportation Issues
(Internal and Controllable Through College)
External barriers over which the institution has no control over include lack of
tribal support, lack of financial resources/support or inadequate finances, lack of family
support, and too many family demands and how Native students feel about asking for
help.
Equation Check-in
External Barriers = Lack of Tribal Support for Native Students + Lack of Financial
Resources/Support or Inadequate Finances + Lack of Family Support + Too Many
Family Demands + How Native Students Feel About Asking For Help
Internal barrier – System itself. The system is set up to serve the majority, not the
minority student. If the system itself were fair and just, there would be no need to have
programs set aside for traditionally underrepresented students. Native students are a
minority amongst minorities in terms of population size. This combined with the
stereotype mentioned time and again within the focus groups that American Indians no
248
longer exist, serves as a significant barrier. Native students in this study recognized they
have little representation, a small population; political power comes from sheer numbers.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = System Serves the Majority & Assimilates the Minority + Native Students
Minority Amongst Minorities Due to Small Population + Stereotype Indians No
Longer Exist + Native Students Little to No Representation Due to Small Population
Native students equate power and being recognized as needing a larger population
of Native students. Viewing this particular issue through TribalCRT (Brayboy, 2006)
allows this researcher to look beyond the campus and at this issue from a broader
perspective, which incorporates historic trauma from colonialism. Natives do not have a
large population because historically they faced genocide and are now in the process of
coming back from the brink of annihilation.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Historic Trauma Based in Colonialism + Faced Genocide
Brayboy’s (2006) TribalCRT allows a connection to be made between
contemporary issues like lack of recognition for Native students on campus and the
federal recognition of tribes. A lack of recognition is problematic for Native students in
that it mirrors the tribal/federal issue with tribal recognition. Tribes not federally
recognized do not have access to resources. Native students know if they are not
249
recognized on campus that this could result in limited to no resources to assist them with
their student success.
And that's the hardest part is getting them to see it as how much Native students
are being ignored and how much their needs are being pushed aside enough to
then recognize that Native students need more -- we need some sort of support
system that is stuck into the hardwiring of the education system itself and not just
through finding our own community in the school. (Focus Group 2, Female
Native Student 7, p. 31, lines 9-13)
The above example contains many points needing to be addressed besides a lack
of recognition at the college level. One would think the need for recognition has to do
with self-confidence, or self-esteem, even identity, but in this instance, the roots of this
problem run much deeper. Native people struggle to be recognized as human beings not
stereotypes by non-Natives and Natives alike, as well as through their tribe. So the first
issue is a matter of racism and stereotyping a group as if they no longer exist or as if they
are invisible. If a group no longer exists, they are not entitled to resources that would
help them be successful. This will be discussed further in the next section.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Lack of Recognition on Campus for Native Students Mirrors Federal
Recognition Issues + Limited to No Access to Resources + Stereotypes that Promote
Natives No Longer Exist + Native Students Feeling Not Entitled to Resources That
Aid in Their Success
The concept of recognition is also related to a tribe’s status with the federal
government. If a Native person is an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe,
250
they are entitled to resources from the tribe. The tribe gets these resources primarily from
the federal government unless they have become self-sufficient. Not many tribes today
are self-sufficient, but many are working toward that goal. Self-sufficiency is defined as
the ability to provide for your own people as a sovereign nation without the assistance
from other governments. What needs to be understood is that through treaty making, the
federal government has redefined the status of Native nations. No longer are they
completely sovereign, but domestic dependent nations who struggle with their very
survival and the need for complete sovereignty on a daily basis.
Federal recognition comes with a price. Tribes rely on their federal recognition
through treaties to obtain resources to provide for their tribal members. In this way,
tribes are dependent on the U.S. federal government. It is important to note that treaties
are land deals made hundreds of years ago by the U.S. federal government with hundreds
of tribes. Through these treaties, land was exchanged for resources. Because land lasts
forever, the federal government is responsible and obligated to provide resources to
Native tribes forever. The federal government has broken every treaty it has ever made
with all Native tribes and has purposefully terminated tribal recognition in the past.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Lack of Trust Between Natives and Institutions/Systems
Due to Historic Traumatic Experiences + No Recognition of Historic Oppression
The concept of recognition rests along the lines of sovereignty, which is an
inherent right for Natives. Although sovereignty is an inherent right, its effects lie in
251
being recognized by other nations, meaning it is helpful and at times necessary for a tribe
to be recognized by other nations as a valid nation itself to be taken seriously and to be
included in discussions impacting the tribe’s sovereign status and very survival. So the
concept of recognition moves beyond racism for the Native student and into the realm of
individual and tribal survival, which is linked to the Indigenous struggle against
colonialism.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Lack of Understanding Because Non-Natives Don’t Know About the
Significance of Sovereignty and Tribal Recognition + Tribes Have Difficulty
Working Together + Recognition Means More and Connects to the Indigenous
Struggle Against Colonialism
Ultimately tribes struggle with this concept of recognition because it makes them
dependent on the U.S. federal government for resources guaranteed through treaty, while
at the same time this recognition invalidates their sovereignty, impacting their very
existence. Brayboy (2006) discusses the significance of sovereignty within TribalCRT
and acknowledges Indigenous people’s desire to establish tribal sovereignty. Brayboy
(2006) explained, “power is rooted in a group’s ability to define themselves, their place in
the world, and their traditions” (p. 435). Power is essential and equates to inherent
sovereignty. Because power is based in the community, it is shared (Brayboy, 2006).
What follows is the ability to meet the needs of the people through the rights to selfidentify, self-govern, and self-educate. The problem with governmental and educational
252
policies toward Indigenous people is the goal of assimilation which links to colonialism
and a loss of sovereignty or power to self-identify and be recognized as Native.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Governmental & Educational Policies Toward Indigenous People Have
Been Assimilation Focused, Linking Colonialism and Loss of Power or Sovereignty
to Self Identify and Being Recognized as Native
Female Native Student 7 acknowledged Native students at SCC have more
support than at other places and this includes caring faculty, but there is another
underlying issue at work. Native students feel they are being excluded and ignored and
their needs are being pushed to the side. The student who reveals this information calls
for a solution creating sustained change that becomes part of the institution. But the root
problem is not lack of recognition. If it were just a self-esteem issue, then students could
garner support from their own Native student community and creating a student
organization would be enough. This is being done, and for many students it helps. But it
is not enough because it does not address what Brayboy (2006) claims is at the root of the
problem, racism with the intent of assimilation ingrained within the system, reinforced
through the deficit model.
253
Equation Check-in
Barriers = Native Students Feel They are Being Excluded & Ignored + Native
Student Needs are Not Being Met + Racism with the Intent of Assimilation Ingrained
within the Educational System is Reinforced through the Deficit Model
Through TribalCRT (Brayboy, 2006), we can see that stating Native student
numbers are too small or insignificant results in not recognizing Native students as being
considered significant even in their small numbers, which allows the institution to
possibly overlook Native student needs. Oppression within the system has succeeded in
making Native students invisible, which has led to the assumption that Native students no
longer exist because they have all been assimilated and their needs are like any other
student needs. Either way, if Native student numbers are so small they are considered
insignificant or if people believe Natives no longer exist or they have all been
assimilated, this scenario is extremely problematic in that Native students’ needs are not
being met.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Small Populations Used to Reinforce Insignificance of Native Student
Population Results in Overlooking Native Student’s Needs + Oppression/Racism
Reinforces Invisibility of Native Students and Assimilation Stereotype + Native
Students Needs Are Like Any Other Student
254
One other issue is at work in this situation is the pressure placed on the
institutions to do more with fewer resources. Native students are often left out of studies
done by institutions because their numbers are so small it is difficult to show any
statistical significance. This may be another convenient way of dealing with limited
resources. If it takes more effort to find out about the needs of a minority group with a
smaller population size, what benefit is it to the institution to take the time and spend the
manpower to do such specific research? Because there are so many students with needs
already, it would not matter to research the specific needs of Native students when it
could be assumed their needs are similar to other students. In doing research for this
study, it was frustrating and difficult at best to find contemporary national or local
statewide data on Native students. Many research articles only include Black or African
American, Asian American, Latino, and White or Caucasian in their statistics. More
often than not, Native student statistics are left out because of the statistical significance
issue in conjunction with low population size. This researcher must mention that the
PRIE Office at Sacramento City College collects data on all their students and they
include data on Native students in their Fact Book and other publications and reports.
They were ready and willing to share the data they had on Native students at Sacramento
City College. Some of this data is included in the population section of Chapter 3.
255
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Native Students Feel They are Being Excluded Because of Statistically
‘Insignificant’ Population Size + Native Students Being Left Out of National, State,
College Studies + Deficit Model Thinking
This type of exclusion of Native students goes back to deficit model thinking,
lumping all students together because they do not have knowledge of the system or how
to use it to meet their needs. So training and workshops take place to assimilate the
student. This type of assumption is problematic in nature because the specific needs of
Native students are never determined and in essence they are being assimilated into the
larger student body, becoming invisible. This one small act of not including Native
students in research done by institutions is an act of oppression because it creates and
maintains an invisible minority who may have more specific needs. Although Native
students are part of the general student population and many of their needs may be
similar, they are a diverse group that deserves unique recognition. Every student
deserves the opportunity to succeed and if it takes an extra effort to ensure they do, then
as educators and administrators we do the extra work necessary to make sure every
student’s needs are met because every student matters.
Native student invisibility. According to Starks (2010), Cole and Denzine (2002),
Milem (2000), and Loo and Rolison (1986), Native students make up a small
demographically invisible population in education institutes, which has a direct negative
256
impact on their success rates. Because data-driven decisions are significant to changes in
policy and there is little to no data collected specifically on American Indian students due
to their small population size, change does not take place. Data collected in this study
with assistance from Sacramento City College’s PRIE Office will lead to data-driven
decisions and recommendations for change that will impact Native student success.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Quantitative Statistics are Limiting with Small Demographic Populations
Racism and oppression. Ingrained racist stereotypes, in addition to historic
trauma, that have impacted Native student identities and their very existence (Brayboy,
2006), create a fundamental barrier preventing the needs of Native students from being
met. It is clear from the focus group data that American Indian community college
students feel invisible at Sacramento City College and this is a root problem related to
racism and issues embedded within the education system causing the achievement gap,
yet to be resolved.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Ingrained Racist Stereotypes Have Impacted Native Student Identities +
Historic Trauma + Native Students Needs from Being Met + American Indian
Community College Students Who Took Part in the Focus Groups Feel Invisible at
Sacramento City College + Root Problem Related to Racism & Achievement Gap
257
Figure 11. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model to Invisibility
Internal barrier – Racial stereotypes and biased course curriculum. Racist
stereotypes and inaccurate course curriculum have been experienced by Native students
at Sacramento City College. To not recognize that Natives are still here and that they are
intimately connected to a historically traumatic past is a disservice in that Native identity
is being questioned, co-opted by academia, and redefined. Essentially, this takes power
away from the Native student who relies on the very institution to empower them. This is
a form of assimilation.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Racist Stereotypes in Course Curriculum Reinforced in Textbooks+ Native
Student Identity being Co-opted by Academia and Redefined + Takes Power Away
From Native Student who Relies on the Institution to Empower them
258
Ingrained stereotypes within curricula and reinforced within the textbooks are
problematic in that a barrier is created when students do not feel they are being respected
or that their experience or identity is valid. What is important to note here is that
professors must recognize the knowledge Native students have is just as valid, if not
more so than what the textbooks states. This goes back to Brayboy’s (2006) TribalCRT
where he discusses the three types of knowledge and how the educational system
assumes academic knowledge to be more accurate and valid than cultural knowledge.
When Native students are asked to regurgitate what they consider to be lies, it
compromises their integrity and challenges them to rethink the value of a degree based in
lies from an oppressive institution.
And it's hard when you know what you know and you know what is honest, but
you want to get a degree kind of because science classes, too, history classes,
political science classes, even social studies classes, some of the things are just
either -- there is nothing about any sort of Native American culture in there or
what is in there is very stereotypical, very abstract, very generalizing and often
not in the most constructive way. And so it's always hard. I've had several
classes where I've had to -- I've talked to my teachers and my teachers have said,
"I'm sorry, but this is the curriculum. You have to do this." So I have basically
lied in order to get "A" on a paper or on an exam or something, so it does very
much feel like you're being ignored. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 7,
pp. 10-11, lines 22-14)
259
Figure 12. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model to Barrier Biased
System
Internal barrier – Culturally incompetent professors. When a student does
address inconsistencies or stereotypes in the subject matter with the professor and the
instructor does not do anything, the problem is compounded. Of great concern to this
researcher is that some instructors actually support the curriculum or the textbook and do
not seek truthful information even when they are informed of the racial stereotypes and
biased course curriculum promoted. This serves as a barrier to Native student success.
Native students may storm out of classroom and withdraw from that class or all of their
classes and may never return to the college, or the Native student might believe the
260
stereotypes and internalize the oppression they are forced to learn. In one example in the
data, a Native student shares her frustration with Native people being lumped together
when there is much tribal diversity. This is a prime example of deficit model thinking as
explained in Brayboy’s (2006) TribalCRT in that the professor is not recognizing the
student’s cultural knowledge of their own or any tribe’(s’) as valid in an academic
setting. Brayboy’s (2006) TribalCRT includes the Native student’s knowledge as part of
his culture, knowledge, and power model and also discusses the problems with academics
adopting deficit model thinking in order to assimilate Native students by ‘re-writing’ or
reinterpreting Native history. He further explains that Native students take responsibility
for their community survival, which is why this example is so important. When Native
students speak to their professors about the inaccuracies in curriculum, they are taking a
stand not just for themselves but for their fellow Native students, the Native community
and their tribe.
261
Figure 13. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model to Barrier Deficit
Model
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Culturally Incompetent Professor who Refuses to Change Curriculum +
Deficit Model Ideology + Sweeping Racist Generalizations about Natives
To generalize all Natives as having one culture is problematic and can break any
trust that has been built with a student (Hornett, 1989; Huffman, 2001; Pavel & Padilla,
1993). Furthermore, by speaking to the professor, the Native student is taking
responsibility for the survival of her community in demanding the correct information be
shared. At the same time she is resisting assimilation. Educators need to do away with
deficit model thinking and become more aware of historic and contemporary Native
issues in order to be able to speak with authority on these topics in the classroom. If it is
necessary, educators should be willing to change curriculum to show their commitment
262
of incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy as part of their mission (Tierney, 1995).
Educating the educator on Indian issues is as important as integrating diversity within the
curriculum by adding an Indigenous perspective to all courses and all disciplines. This
would be a significant amount of work, but it is appropriate and long overdue. Old and
new programs alike should be designed with Indigenous students in mind (Pewewardy &
Frey, 2004).
Internal barrier - Uncaring professors. Unknowing professors are often open to
learning new information to add to their lectures because they care about the accuracy
and validity of the information they provide students. Uncaring professors are
problematic because they do o’t care enough to learn accurate information and often do
minimal to nothing to make changes in the curriculum content.
You could stand in their face and scream at them and they just look at you like
why are you telling me this? I'm not going to change what I'm saying. I don't
care. So that is very -- it's very difficult to succeed in class then because like I
said before you have to pretty much just do whatever they want you to do and not
actually do what you know. (Focus Group 2, Student 7, pp. 34-35, lines 19-5)
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Uncaring Professor
Again this may be based on the deficit model, be in fear of losing authority within
the classroom, or it may have to do with a whole host of issues. This is why educating
the educator is so important. We can begin to understand why some educators do not
care enough to make change. It may possibly be they just do not know how to make
change or even where to begin. Knowledge that a change needs to take place is where
263
change must start. We also have to recognize negative outcomes can result from negative
classroom experiences. Native students go through a range of emotions including
disbelief, anger, and feeling insignificant or invisible, which are traumatic and serve as
barriers to their success. If students are not getting the correct information from
professors in various disciplines, then the work of one Native studies professor in
educating and re-educating the entire campus seems futile. This is why there is a need to
create a series of cultural competency workshops about educating the educator, an idea
garnered from a female Native student from focus group 2. An additional suggestion
from another female Native student in focus group 3 included involving the external
Native community when developing the ‘Educating the Educator’ series of workshops
and seminars.
Internal barrier – Bureaucracy. When asked about barriers in general, one focus
group student replied, “I’d say just the simple bureaucracy (Focus Group 1, Male Native
Student 2, p. 17, line 9) is a barrier.
Internal barrier – Bureaucratic or restrictive admissions practices. Quantitative
data revealed significant correlations between a number of variables including students
who would withdraw due to restrictive admissions practices were found to pay tuition
with public assistance and would withdraw because of too many family demands, due to
bureaucratic academic advising, or due to limited academic support. Specific problems
with the Admissions and Records office were revealed within the qualitative data and
were primarily focused on clerical error. More than one Native student indicated that
264
Admissions and Records would keep changing their major, which would cause problems
with their financial aid. Another student indicated Admissions and Records would get
false information and mix his name up with another person who had the same name. But
this student could not figure out the problem because students are assigned student
identification numbers. If the clerk were to check the data based on identification
number, there should be no issue. And yet another student had a professor drop him from
a class for not attending when he had attended class from the beginning of the semester
(invisibility). When the student went to admissions and records to clear up the
misunderstanding, the drop had been processed so the student had to pay back financial
aid for that one class, which created an unnecessary financial hardship. This student had
not been notified by Admissions and Records that he had been dropped from the class. It
often falls upon the student to check their accounts daily for any discrepancies.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Bureaucracy + Bureaucratic Admissions Practices +
Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services
Need for evaluations. This researcher is unaware of evaluations being done on
the services Admissions and Records provide to students. If no evaluations are done,
how will improvements be made to fix the problems within the bureaucratic system?
Native students who participated in this study experience problems not only with a
bureaucratic Admissions and Records office, but also with Financial Aid Services.
265
Barrier – Bureaucratic financial aid services. Socioeconomic disadvantage or
poverty has resulted in a majority of Native students needing financial aid. Financial Aid
Services are problematic for many Native students. Additional hardship is caused by
problems with financial aid being late. Students attempt to struggle through to complete
the semester but administrators need to be aware that this has a negative impact on grades
as well as retention and student success. From the information students provided in the
focus groups, problems with Financial Aid Services are the most troubling and seem to
be the most challenging barrier simply because funding is a resource linked to so many
other factors like enrolling in and paying for classes or buying textbooks in order to do
the readings to pass the class.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Socioeconomic Disadvantage + Poverty + Financial Aid Services
Financial Aid Services are problematic in that students feel they are not getting
the correct information about what they need to do to get their funding. Workshops
geared toward Native students need to take place periodically every semester. This
researcher realizes there are open financial aid labs, but this does not mean the Native
student can attend or ask for help if they do not understand the information being
provided. With inconsistent policies and procedures that make no sense, it is any wonder
anyone receives financial aid. Native students in this study are learning they need to keep
in constant contact with Financial Aid Services if they are to obtain the resources they
need to be successful.
266
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Inconsistent Policies and Procedures with Financial Aid Services +
Bureaucracy + Financial Hardship
Even when students provide the necessary documents, funding is not a guarantee.
With the bureaucracy in the form of paperwork, records, and proof required from the
financial aid office multiple times in different formats, students just give up. This barrier
is too great, especially when the student is on the brink of being homeless and hungry,
and the paperwork and proof turned in come up missing. There is a definite need for
student evaluations of this service.
Bureaucratic hoops within this office are complicated. Not only does financial
aid answer to the student, which should be their first priority, but they answer to the
President of the college, the District Office, the State Chancellor’s Office, and,
ultimately, to State and Federal agencies. Funding students becomes complicated with a
variety of policies to consider. Furthermore, recent changes have led to tightened
restrictions on students because of a few criminals who took advantage of the system to
use college funding for other matters.
New financial aid policies have placed community colleges in a bind because they
must pay back the federal government for financial aid that has been distributed to the
student who never attends classes. This financial burden falls to the district to collect on
student debt. Change in one part of the system creates change in other areas. Educators
are being asked to drop students who are not attending because these students should not
267
be receiving financial aid and the college is expected to pay back the monies out of their
budget which is an added cost during this time of budget cuts for education.
The focus group findings indicated many Native students did not rely on their
parents or families for financial support; instead, they relied on public assistance and
financial aid. This specific issue is one that plagues many students. Officially, students
who fall under a certain age within the federal regulations are automatically considered
dependents on their parents, so parental income must be counted against the financial
needs of the student even though the student may be completely financially independent
of their parent(s) and the parents do not contribute at all to the educational needs of their
adult offspring. This indicates a need for a federal policy change where students can and
should be able to prove independence from their parents at younger ages, especially
students who were foster children.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Financial Aid Requirements + Federal Financial Aid Policies +
Independent Age of Student and Parental Income & Support + Financial Aid Student
Workers Who Have No Power
Additional problems are caused by stopgap measures instituted by policies within
Financial Aid Services. For example, students who go to the financial aid office are
served by other students who do not know much about the broad federal and state
regulations, and they do not have the power to make changes to student files. This
becomes problematic because it is apparent students are hired to filter through students
268
who are serious about their education, or the ones who can persist. Student workers often
cannot advise their peers as to what course of action to take other than what the computer
program provides and they certainly do not have power to actually help or recognize and
override problems within the system. Student workers reiterate what the computer states
the office needs in terms of paperwork. If the student has questions that cannot be
answered by the student worker, then additional appointments are needed to see someone
who has significant power to make changes necessary for the student to receive their
financial aid.
There is no flexibility in financial aid policies and no allies with power to assist
Native students. There needs to be at least one person who covers Native student cases
for policy inconsistencies to be addressed. In this office’s efforts to meet policy
demands, the student feels her needs have been put aside and she is no longer the
deserving client, but is treated as a suspicious, treacherous embezzler of funds that should
be guarded and saved for true students who will be successful. But the stereotype is that
students who are deserving, and who will become successful, will know how to navigate
Financial Aid Services, and they will be rewarded with their financial aid money.
Minority students including Native students are not characterized as deserving.
Interconnection of services. It is apparent that various services at the college,
including Admissions and Records and Financial Aid Services are intertwined and work
quickly to penalize the student but are very slow in reconciling any mistakes made on
their part in favor of the student. This is an enormous barrier for Native students in that
269
by the time student records are repaired the student may have already withdrawn.
Moreover, it is evident services are interconnected. Failure to serve students in one
department compounds the problem and makes it almost impossible for students to
achieve academic success.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Disconnection Between Student Services
Financial Aid Services & Admissions & Records
Internal barrier – Limited number and variety of course offerings. The limited
number and variety of courses offered has become a barrier all students experience.
During these times of budget cuts, colleges are limiting the number of course sections
offered and the type of courses, as well. Students attempt to fit required courses into their
schedule every semester but these courses fill up fast and additional sections are not
available. So the end result is that the student must attend additional semesters and take
filler courses that do not fulfill general education or specific major requirements. These
filler units can add up and prevent a student from receiving financial aid to finish up their
required units. With a new policy and drive toward enrollment management due to cuts
in funding and a looming state deficit, the district office needs to maintain solvency to be
prepared for a longer debt crisis. One way to do this is to cut courses. As course sections
are cut, faculty become concerned about their salaries and tenure status. Unions get
involved and the entire process becomes very complicated.
270
The Chancellor and District Office maintain that by cutting course sections now,
the college will be able to maintain full-time positions and not have to lay off faculty. In
the meantime, adjunct faculty course offerings have been minimized and full-time faculty
salaries are being reduced. There seems to be no end to the deficit unless people want to
truly address the needs of their community and support education by revising voter
approved propositions and the way in which the state financially supports education.
Internal barrier – Condescending tutors. Students indicated in the quantitative
survey data that they used math and writing labs as well as tutors and peers, which
correlated with EOPS and RISE. More information about problems associated with these
programs and services came from the focus groups. One student indicated a barrier was
formed because of the “condescending attitude from the math tutors” (Focus Group 1,
Student 2, p. 8, lines 19-20). Tutors should build up the student, not tear down their selfesteem. Training for service providers like tutors should be evaluated for inconsistencies
and improvements should be made. Furthermore, services and programs designed to
assist students should be evaluated periodically by students to ensure needs are being
met. Evaluations provide much needed data to improve student services. Data can be
used to adjust training and services.
Internal barrier – Costs and availability of books. The debate over the costs and
availability of books has been an important topic of discussion over the past several
years. Publishing companies, faculty, and students are driving forces in this debate.
Publishing companies push for new editions of books every year while faculty and
271
students prefer to use the same text for a few years to remain consistent in the curriculum
and cut down on the costs of books for students. But publishing companies do not make
any money if they cannot sell new editions unless they buy up old editions of the book
they publish and sell these for the same or for a slightly reduced cost. In the meantime,
many professors have done their part in requesting additional copies of textbooks from
the publishing companies to place on reserve at the college library so students have some
type of access, albeit limited. Professors are also choosing less expensive texts with
black and white photos. The simple fact is that none of this effort matters if students
never have the money for books because they have to choose between eating and reading.
To remedy the issue with students not being able to afford a textbook, some professors
have chosen to go digital and provide free copies or access to free copies for students
online. Other faculty have given up on assigning readings all together and have chosen to
provide information in lectures because they determined that even if students had access
to textbooks, they would not do the readings because students do not have time in their
busy schedules of trying to raise families and work while attending college.
Internal barrier – Transportation issues. Transportation has been found to be a
barrier in both the quantitative and qualitative data. The more difficult it is to get to
campus, the less likely a student will go to class or remain enrolled in classes. This issue
plagues Native students. Some students overcome this barrier while others do not know
how to cope with this issue other than by withdrawing from the college. The college has
addressed this issue somewhat with a bus pass included with student fees, but this is only
272
during the fall and spring semesters, not the summer. Another strategy has been student
carpools. One other way to deal with this situation is to offer more courses online or at
outreach centers where students can obtain easier access to learning.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Limited Number and Variety of Course Offerings + Condescending Tutors
+ Cost & Availability of Books + Transportation Issues
External barriers are ones the institution has no control over but should be aware
of to further understand the needs of Native students. The lack of tribal support and lack
of family support coupled with too many family demands, as well as a lack of financial
resources, are external barriers recognized by Native students in this study.
External barrier – Lack of tribal support. A few issues should be discussed about
the lack of tribal support. First, more often than not Native students need to be enrolled
in their tribe before they can get any type of resources from their tribe. If the individual
is not enrolled, they may get access to meager funds in other ways but not necessarily
through their affiliated tribe. But even if the student is enrolled, tribal support is often
insufficient and varies depending on the solvency of the tribe. Some tribes have limited
resources while others have access to more because of a treaty agreement, lease of certain
lands in trust, and Native business development, which may or may not include gaming.
If tribes have resources it does not mean they have chosen to provide an education for
their enrolled members, as is the case in the following example:
273
And my tribe, I don't talk to them because I asked them if I could get money for
my books and they never called me back. And then I called them again and they
never called me back. (Focus Group 3, Student 11, p. 9, line 18)
Tribes are at a turning point. At no other time in post-contact history have tribes
been more empowered to make their own sovereign decisions. Because tribes are taking
into consideration their lack of financial resources today and have been limited in the past
as to what they could do to obtain more funding to care for tribal members, many are in
the process of dis-enrolling members to create a smaller pool to which to distribute these
limited resources. This action succeeds in doing two things: 1) reduces the number of
tribal members who get the limited resources and 2) allows certain families who are
enrolled tribal members to discriminate against and essentially get rid of other families
they have been quarreling with since they were placed on the reservation together. This
is dangerous territory in that as tribes set precedence for dis-enrolling members, they
endanger their very recognition and existence. As it is, tribally and federally set
restrictions are not allowing younger generations to enroll so it is only a matter of time
until tribes no longer exist.
This researcher is hoping the newest phase of expressing tribal sovereignty by disenrolling members is just that, a phase that tribes will outgrow. This researcher believes
dis-enrollment is an outward expression of internalized oppression, taught by the federal
government and experienced by individual Natives who now have some tribal power
associated with sovereignty to act or react to their subjugation. Education is the key to
awareness and this researcher believes tribes are not even aware of what they are doing to
274
themselves or their members when dis-enrollment occurs. To completely understand the
full effects of oppression and resiliency, researchers need to observe the actions of tribal
governments through time. There is a need for Native researchers to study this
phenomenon and bring awareness to sovereign tribes.
External barrier – Lack of family support or too many family demands. In this
study, families were found to not always be supportive of the Native student attending
college. In fact, it was disturbing how often family, emotional, physical, and financial
support had been withdrawn.
My mom, like she doesn't think I'm going to be able to finish. She doesn't think
I'm going to stick with it. (Focus Group 3, Female Native Student 12, p.10, lines
1-2)
Student 10 from focus group 2 revealed she substituted community support for
family support in times when her family was not able to support her.
As far as my family is concerned, my family has not always been supportive. I
get a lot of, "When are you ever going to graduate?" "Do you really think that
you're making a wise decision?" Choosing law at this time in my life seems
nearly outrageous to some of my family members, but luckily what my family
can't do for me my community can. And what my community can't do for me my
family can. And I think what I've learned in between there is that I have through
my tribe and through learning more about myself and culture is that my people
have been through far worse than community college and that my relatives
sacrificed their lives. They paid in blood so that I can be here. (Focus Group 2,
Female Native Student 10, p. 18-19, lines 19-5)
For student 7 in focus group 2, family was a barrier she needed to overcome by
cutting them out of her life. Unfortunately, this Native student experienced a negative
family situation but was able to overcome it by coming to the understanding that family
is fluid. Other expectations from family members besides going to college were also a
275
barrier one student needed to overcome. And even when parents were not supportive,
one student found her sibling to be, and she credits him for her current success. One
student in focus group 2 admitted that if he had listened to his family, he would not want
to attend school. Student 8 in focus group 2 revealed students need a network of people
to support them when they go to college. This researcher concurs that there needs to be
an external network and an internal network of people, services, and resources for Native
students to succeed.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Lack of Tribal Support + Lack of Family Support +
Too Many Family Demands
External barrier – Lack of financial resources/support or inadequate finances.
Financial issues or socioeconomic disadvantage is largely a result of an overarching
problem with the U.S. market economy based in capitalism and reinforced by a class
system that behaves more like a caste system. In reviewing poverty rates for Natives, it is
clear there is another underlying barrier for Indigenous people rooted in historic
oppression. When the federal government instituted mandatory boarding schools that
only offered instruction and curriculum up to the eighth grade, and focused on teaching
Native students gender-specific service skills like sewing and cooking for girls and metal
work and taking care of livestock for boys, American Indians were condemned to
intergenerational poverty.
276
The quantitative data revealed students who saw inadequate financial resources as
a barrier to academic success did not feel they would have enough financial support to
achieve their academic goal and would withdraw from a class or the college due to lack
of finances. Financial resources are one key component to Native student success.
Without financial support, Native students would face a significant barrier. Students who
participated in this study saw socioeconomic disadvantage as a barrier and were less
likely to enroll in classes if they were experiencing lack of funds. There can be no
academic student success if Native students never enroll. In addition, the data reveals
students who see socioeconomic disadvantage as a barrier, would withdraw because of a
lack of finances or due to restrictive admissions practices, bureaucratic academic
advising, bureaucratic financial aid services, and limited academic support. This data
was backed up by focus group comments about funding.
It's hard for you to be a student and be successful and concentrate on what the
professor is telling you when in the back of your mind they're going to cut your
power off the next day and you're trying to figure out in the back of your mind,
"Who am I going to call to borrow this money? Who can I call? What can I do?"
And I don't really want to call anybody to beg for money because I'm a grown
person, but it's hard for me to pay bills because I'm not focused. (Focus Group 1,
Student 3, p. 28, lines 5-13)
This researcher has noted earlier that everything within a system is interconnected. This
includes barriers.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Inadequate Finances or Lack of Financial Support
277
Perfect storm scenario preventing Native students from achieving student success.
Quantitative data revealed students who would withdraw because of a lack of finances,
restrictive admissions practices, bureaucratic academic advising, limited academic
support, and having a limited number and variety of courses in which to enroll, would
also be likely to withdraw because of bureaucratic Financial Aid Services. Qualitative
data supported quantitative data in reinforcing that these barriers do exist and must be
dealt with in order to succeed.
Equation Check-in
Barrier = Lack of Finances + Restrictive Admissions Practices +
Bureaucratic Academic Advising + Limited Academic Support + Limited Courses +
Bureaucratic Financial Aid Services
Figure 14. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model to Academic
Advising
278
No culturally competent academic advising combined with Native students
feeling uncomfortable asking for help creates a perfect storm. First, when Native
students need to ask for help, they are admitting they are not capable of navigating the
system, which may lead to self-doubt, shame, fears, and feelings of inadequacy about
being in college in the first place. Then when they do not ask for help, barriers are never
forded and student success is no longer in reach.
Equation Check In
Barrier = Native Students Feel Uncomfortable Asking for Help
Summary. Internal and external barriers exist for Native students. Internal
barriers are controllable through the college and include a system linked to the
perpetuation of racial stereotypes, which specifically result in making Native students
invisible on campus; an inaccurate course curriculum or content reinforced by culturally
incompetent, uncaring professors; bureaucratic or restrictive admissions practices;
bureaucratic financial aid services; limited number and variety of course offerings;
condescending tutors; the costs and availability of books; and transportation issues.
External barriers the institution has no control over include lack of tribal support, lack of
financial resources/support or inadequate finances, lack of family support, too many
family demands, and how Native students feel about asking for help. It is important for
the institution to be aware of the external barriers because they impact student needs
within the internal academic environment. Interconnection between barriers prevents
students from achieving success.
279
Oppression is so ingrained within the education system, it is difficult to see Native
students feel invisible because they are being treated as if they no longer exist. Native
students themselves linked the two concepts of the small Native student campus
population with little political power and the need for Native students to see more Native
students, faculty, staff, and administrators on campus like them to reinforce a Native
presence. At first, the researcher thought this particular issue had to do only with identity
and self-esteem issues but with further in-depth analysis and in applying the theoretical
framework, the invisibility or lack of recognition of Native students on campus mirrors
the issue of federal recognition of tribes.
As Native students struggle to be recognized as humans, not stereotypes by the
education institution, they are challenging the notion that Natives no longer exist and in
so doing are reclaiming power over their individual and group identity as Natives. At the
same time, they are claiming rights to resources that will help them become successful.
Native tribes are doing the same thing with the federal government when they demand
federal recognition of their sovereign rights. Without recognition, there is no access to
resources, thus individuals and tribes would cease to exist. Identity is the cursory
finding. Survival is the real issue. This dilemma is linked to the Indigenous struggle
against colonialism relating to genocidal and assimilation strategies utilized by the
federal government which have now transitioned to higher education.
Not being recognized by the institution means the Native student has become
invisible. Native identity is questioned, co-opted by academia and redefined, which is an
280
act of assimilation. Essentially, this takes power away from the Native student who relies
on the very institution to empower them to have their specific needs met. Likewise,
when the federal government decided to terminate federal recognition of tribes in the
1950s, it no longer recognized approximately 100 different tribes and they lost their
resources guaranteed through treaty to take care of their own people, as well as their
power to identify as sovereign nations with unique histories and specific needs.
The problem with governmental and educational policies toward Indigenous
people is the goal of assimilation linking back to colonialism and a loss of sovereignty or
power to self-identify and be recognized as Native. If a student is no longer Native then
what are they? This connects to the deficit model theory in that all students are treated in
the same way in that they know nothing of academia; therefore, they know nothing. It is
as if the education system attempts to strip the identity of students, assimilate them, and
remold them into skilled workers needed to fill jobs and nothing more. This concept is
confusing and terrifying. Oppression within the system has succeeded in making Native
students invisible, which has led to the assumption that Native students no longer exist
because they have all been assimilated. By ignoring or not recognizing Native students,
this allows the institution to overlook their needs. Because data-driven decisions are
significant to changes in policy and there is little to no data collected on American Indian
students due to their small population size, change does not take place and Native student
needs continue to be unmet. At the same, time barriers increase restricting Native student
success.
281
Ingrained racist stereotypes within curriculum and reinforced within the textbooks
have impacted Native student identities and their very existence. That, in addition to
historic trauma (Brayboy, 2006), creates a fundamental barrier preventing the needs of
Native students from being met. It is clear from the focus group data that American
Indian community college students feel invisible at Sacramento City College and this is a
root problem related to racism and issues embedded within the education system that
causes the achievement gap.
Culturally incompetent professors who do not seek out truthful information even
when they are informed by the Native student of the racial stereotypes and biased course
curriculum act as another barrier to Native student success. To generalize all Natives as
having one culture is problematic and can break any trust that has been built with a
student (Hornett, 1989; Huffman, 2001; Pavel & Padilla, 1993). These professors can
cause a number of negative reactions from Native students including withdrawing from
the class or college. Worse yet, the Native student may internalize the oppression they
are forced to learn. The culturally incompetent professor is a prime example of deficit
model thinking as explained in Brayboy’s (2006) TribalCRT in that the professor is not
recognizing the student’s knowledge of their own or any tribe’(s’) culture as valid in an
academic setting. Essentially, the culturally incompetent professor may be unknowingly
re-writing or reinterpreting Native history. Some Native students feel they must take
responsibility for their community survival by demanding the correct information be
shared; hence, they counter these professors, thereby risking being labeled as a trouble
282
maker or being accused of disrupting class. At the same time, the Native student is
resisting assimilation.
Educators need to do away with deficit model thinking and become more aware
of historic and contemporary Native issues in order to be able to speak with authority on
these topics in the classroom. If it is necessary, educators should be willing to change
curriculum to show their commitment to incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy as
part of their mission (Tierney, 1995). Educating the educator on Indian issues is as
important as integrating diversity within the curriculum by adding an Indigenous
perspective to all courses and all disciplines.
Uncaring professors are problematic because they do not care enough to learn
accurate information and often do little to nothing to make changes in the curriculum
content. Again, this may be based in the deficit model or for fear of losing authority
within the classroom or a whole host of issues. This is why educating the educator is so
important. We can begin to understand why some educators do not care enough to make
changes. It may possibly be they just do not know how to make changes or even where
to begin. But we have to recognize that negative outcomes can result from negative
classroom experiences with uncaring professors and steps need to be taken about this
issue.
Additional barriers are due to bureaucratic or restrictive admissions practices and
financial aid services. It was found that students who would withdraw due to restrictive
admissions practices were found to pay tuition with public assistance and would
283
withdraw because of too many family demands, due to bureaucratic academic advising,
or due to limited academic support. Specific problems with the Admissions and Records
office were revealed within the qualitative data and were primarily focused on clerical
error.
Problems with Financial Aid Services are the most troubling and seem to be the
most challenging barrier simply because funding is a resource linked to so many other
factors, such as enrolling in and paying for classes or buying textbooks to do the readings
to pass the class. Additional hardship is caused by problems with financial aid being late.
Students attempt to struggle through to complete the semester but administrators need to
be aware this has a negative impact on grades as well as retention and student success.
At the core of problems with financial aid is the need for correct information.
Inconsistent policies and procedures result in Native students providing documents,
records, and proof in duplicate because the paperwork is lost or never received by
financial services. Even when students provide the necessary documents, funding is not a
guarantee. This barrier is too great. Especially when the students are on the brink of
being homeless, are hungry, and paperwork and proof turned in comes up missing.
With additional financial burdens falling on colleges because of new federal
financial aid policies requiring colleges to pay back the government for aid that has been
distributed to students who are not attending classes, change in one part of the system
creates change in other areas. Educators are being asked to drop students who are not
attending because these students should not be receiving financial aid, and the college is
284
expected to pay back the monies out of their budget, an added cost during this time of
budget cuts for education. These changes are just the beginning. Because a few students
have taken advantage of this system, this researcher is noticing the image of the student is
changing. Instead of being a person who needs and deserves assistance, students are
being seen as undeserving because there is always an opportunity for them to try to take
advantage of the system. When this ideology is adopted by workers within Admissions
and Records and Financial Aid Services, it serves as a barrier to student success.
There are problems with federal financial aid policies themselves. So many
students fall within the age restriction where they are automatically dependents on their
parents but receive no help or financial assistance from their parents, especially Native
students who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage in the first place. When parental
income is counted against student financial aid funding even though the parent does not
contribute to the student’s living expenses or education it serves as an undue hardship for
the student.
Stopgap measures in financial aid services are an outcome of overwork placed on
too few people in conjunction with the new image of the student who is undeserving.
Students who wait in line to see someone in financial aid are filtered through student
workers who review student files on the computer. Student workers cannot advise their
peers as to what course of action to take other than what the computer program provides
and they do not have power to help or training to recognize problems within the system.
Students become frustrated with the system because this barrier is too difficult to ford.
285
Additional appointments need to be set and financial aid is delayed even further.
There is no flexibility in financial aid policies and no allies with power to assist Native
students. Changes need to be made to policies in this department because administrators
have lost sight of the main purpose of the college, which is student success. In this
office’s efforts to meet policy demands, the student has been put aside and is no longer
the deserving client, but a suspicious, treacherous embezzler of funds that should be
guarded and saved for the college.
It is apparent various services at the college, including Admissions and Records
and Financial Aid Services, are intertwined and work quickly to penalize the student but
are very slow in reconciling any mistakes made on their part in favor of the student. This
is an enormous barrier for Native students in that by the time student records are errorfree, the student may have already withdrawn. Moreover, it is evident services are
interconnected. Failure to serve students in one department compounds the problem and
makes it almost impossible for students to achieve academic success.
Funding cuts have resulted in a limited number and variety of courses offered
which has become a barrier all students experience. During these times of budget cuts,
colleges are limiting the number of course sections offered and the type of course as well.
Students are able to get the courses they need within the timeframe in order to graduate in
a timely manner. The end result is students must attend additional semesters but because
of budget cuts and enrollment management issues, students are being restricted on the
number of classes they can take and the number of times they can repeat a class. The
286
district needs to maintain solvency to be prepared for a longer debt crisis. One way to do
this is to cut courses. As course sections are cut, faculty become concerned about their
salaries and tenure status. Unions get involved and the entire process becomes very
complicated.
The Chancellor and District Office maintains that by cutting course sections now,
the college will be able to maintain full-time positions and not have to lay off faculty. In
the meantime, adjunct faculty course offerings have been minimized and full-time faculty
salaries are being reduced. There seems to be no end to the deficit unless people want to
truly address the needs of their community and support education by revising voter
approved propositions and the way in which the state supports education. Although they
may seem trivial, a few other issues, including condescending math tutors, the cost and
availability of books, and transportation issues serve as barriers.
External barriers include a lack of tribal support, lack of family support or too
many family demands, and lack of financial resources/support or inadequate finances.
The data revealed students who see socioeconomic disadvantage as a barrier, would
withdraw because of a lack of finances, due to restrictive admissions practices,
bureaucratic academic advising, bureaucratic financial aid services, and because of
limited academic support. This researcher noted earlier that everything within a system is
interconnected. This includes barriers.
287
Resiliency Characteristics
Resiliency is defined as the skills or processes by which people cope with
oppressive conditions. Native students have unmet needs and have experienced barriers
rooted in racism and oppression; therefore, they have had to develop coping mechanisms
or resiliency characteristics to survive and be successful. Because this study focuses on
Native student success in higher education, the resources within the educational
environment must be included. Knowledge on how to access these resources and what
they provide is a resiliency characteristic.
Quantitative analysis revealed resiliency characteristics employed by American
Indian community college students who participated in this study to be in the realms of
scholarship/financial support, spiritual support, social/community support, and friend or
peer/mentor support. Qualitative analysis revealed resiliency characteristics, some of
which fall in similar realms as were found in the quantitative data, of community as
family or sources of motivation and support; mentoring, friend, and peer support; support
services that teach resiliency characteristics like RISE and the Native American Studies
Program; caring professors and counselors as well as acts of resistance or survivance.
288
Equation Check-in
Resiliency Characteristics = Scholarship/Financial Support + Spiritual Support +
Social/Community Support + Friend/Peer Support + Mentor Support + Community
as Family & Sources of Motivation/Support + Mentoring + Friend & Peer Support +
Support Service Programs + Caring Professors & Counselors + Acts of
Resistance/Survivance
As established in the barriers section, racism is at the core of obstacles
experienced by Native American community college students because it is ingrained
within the institution. Resistance or survivance resiliency characteristics are imperative
for the very survival of the Native person. This type of resiliency comes from the
connections Native students have to their families, communities and tribes. These
resistance or survivance characteristics have either been passed down from successive
generations or have been built within the current generation to resist oppression. Female
Native student 6 in focus group 1 also felt the connection to other Natives to resist
genocidal acts and continue surviving. In addition, this student connected this type of
resistance/survivance resiliency to success and prosperity of the individual and Native
community.
I feel that being Native we're representing something more than ourselves. We're
a nation that has been murdered and killed and we're still alive. And what better
way to prosper than to at least get an education and to show other Natives that it's
possible to succeed in this new world. (Focus Group 1, Student 6, p. 32, lines 712)
289
Social/community support as a resiliency factor is receiving support from the
larger community including social groups, religious groups, and cultural groups and or
tribes. Native students in the focus groups revealed that the Native community was
important to their academic success.
Example: “I have not made it one single day since I started college, and I'm sure I
never will again, make it one single day without the help of my community. And
the interesting thing about that is it's always been here. The community has
always been here. I think it's just tapping in and realizing that we belong to a
circle that's much larger than ourselves”(Focus Group 2, Female Native Student
10, pg. 18, lines 13-18).
To be able to have the skills to create family from the Native student community
was an essential resiliency characteristic. And peers play a significant role in resiliency.
Peer support or obtaining emotional support from friends or college peers is a resiliency
factor. When students create relationships at college it helps them to feel more at home
(Huffman, 2001) and this comfort translates to retention. Anyone including faculty, staff,
administrators and peers can be mentors according to Tierney (1995).
Reyhner & Dodd (1995) recommend that mentors have some type of connection
to the student, either they are from the same discipline or they have similar interests or
they share the same or similar cultural backgrounds. In fact several authors reinforce
hiring American Indian faculty and staff to provide the Native student with informed and
adequate support (Falk & Aitken, 1984; Kleinfeld, Kyle, & Cooper, 1987; O’Brien, 1990;
Pavel & Padilla, 1993; Reyhner & Dodd, 1995). Mentoring contributes to the retention
of minority students (Pope, 2002; Jacobi, 1991). Central to Native student success are
American Indian faculty and administrators (Schmidtke, 2008). These mentors reinforce
290
student self esteem which contributes to their success (Schmidtke, 2008). Native faculty,
staff and administrators are leaders and stakeholders in student success who assist in
connecting the student to the professional community (Schmidtke, 2008). Native
educators and administrators are needed to mentor Indigenous students to become leaders
in their tribal communities (Gilbert, 2000; Huffman, 2001).
Peer mentoring is important to student retention and success (Hoover & Jacobs,
1992). Peer support helps Native students deal with conflict, improve feelings of
belonging, reinforce and clarify identity, and understand their values, beliefs, ways of
learning and thinking are a burden but an asset to critical thinking and problem solving
(Schmidtke, 2008; Tate & Schwartz, 1993). As stated earlier, peer mentoring can take
place in many ways including tutoring, study groups (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997)
and student centers (Cole & Denzine, 2002), and student organizations (Reyhner &
Dodd, 1995; Schmidtke, 2008). Peer groups create a sense of community, “help students
deal with feelings of isolation and alienation, and can offer specific advice on study skills
or other academic matters” (Schmidtke, 2008, p. 111).
When peers are connected to services and can show Native students how to
successfully navigate the system as well as how to survive, this becomes a resiliency
characteristic all its own. Services and programs such as RISE and the Native American
Studies program connected to peer support and stood out as helpful. Social/community
support as a resiliency factor correlated with spiritual support as a resiliency
characteristic. Because spiritual support has to do with the ability to cope with factors
291
that may be out of one’s control, and finances often fall into this category, then the
significant correlation between scholarship/financial support and spiritual support is
important to note. Students indicated spiritual support as a resiliency characteristic was
used when they faced inadequate financial resources as a barrier. Spiritual support
resiliency also correlated with using public assistance and with using grants and
scholarships to pay for tuition. Students enrolled in units were less likely to view
spiritual support as a resiliency factor. This also makes sense because if they were
enrolled in units then they would be more likely to use the scholarship/financial support
resiliency characteristic than the spiritual support characteristic because the uncertainty of
being enrolled in units had diminished.
The scholarship/financial support resiliency characteristic refers to skills or
knowledge necessary to obtain financial support. Because financial support is both a
need and barrier, this resiliency characteristic is important. Students who said they
received financial aid and used grants and scholarships to pay tuition noted this resiliency
characteristic as significant. This makes sense because students have obtained skills
necessary to acquire resources and have incorporated these skills with this resiliency
characteristic. Students who had earned units and those who were enrolled in units
correlated with financial support as a resiliency factor. Furthermore this resiliency
characteristic correlated with using peer and other tutoring. As revealed in the focus
group data, peers have been a primary source of financial aid advising. Financial aid
advising was used, found to be important, and students were satisfied with it when they
292
were able to get advising. This reveals to the researcher that financial aid advising was
significant in terms of Native students learning resiliency skills but there were still
problems with financial aid services that created a barrier. Students who indicated that
financial support was a resiliency characteristic also ranked spiritual support as a
resiliency characteristic.
Summary. Resiliency characteristics act as cushions between barriers and need to
keep students in a tentative state of equilibrium. If resiliency characteristics do not work,
there is an imminent danger of the Native student never achieving academic success.
Figure 15. Reziliency Model Relating to Needs and Barriers
293
Practical Application
In applying the equation for student success, (Needs Being Met – Barriers) +
Resiliency Characteristics = Student Success, Native students needs, barriers, and
resiliency characteristics have been identified. This researcher has taken this opportunity
to create a student success model from the equation. The first model will be general and
can be applied to any institution and any student racial/ethnic group. After the
recommendations section, the second model is proposed, which will apply directly to
Native Student success at Sacramento City College.
Figure 16. Working Student Success Model
294
The Working Student Success Model focuses on what the institution can and
should provide for students in terms of needs, reducing or eliminating barriers, and
reinforcing resiliency. The students’ needs take center stage as do institutional support
and involvement of the external community, bringing together the Trifecta of Success
ensuring the future employment of the student and continued reinforced connection
between the college and community. Significant connections are made between people,
programs, services, departments, divisions, and the external community. There is the
incorporation of outreach, recruitment and retention as well as focus on student success.
Elements of evaluation and cultural competency training are involved. In order to apply
this model to Native students, we must review general recommendations and
recommendations for Leadership, Policy, and Practice for each of the variables: needs,
barriers, and resiliency characteristics.
Needs Recommendations
First and foremost, it is difficult to try and control any external factors impacting
Native students like family support and financial need. The best any educational leader
can do is to address needs the institution can meet that have a direct impact on the
student’s academic success. Student needs can be met in a number of different ways by
rethinking, re-educating, and re-structuring college support services. This researcher has
many recommendations to fulfill Native student needs but primarily the
recommendations stem from the students themselves.
295
Needs Recommendations for Leadership
A transformative and transformational leader with institutional support and
connections to internal and external programs, people, and services could bring
representatives from various programs, departments, and divisions within the college
(outreach/recruitment and retention services, the Cultural Awareness Center, the Staff
Development Center, advisors, professors, departments, Native student organizations,
coordinators of existing programs like RISE and EOPS) together with external Native
Tribal representatives and Native community members to create a Native student success
consortium in which the primary mission is Native student academic success. Members
of this consortium would be in charge of revising or creating policy and enacting
practices that lead to several desired goals that meet defined Native student needs. As
each program, department or division, meet their goals, there should be marked
improvement in Native student success.
Native student success can be measured in a variety of ways including through
traditional methods like GPA, units earned, units enrolled and completion of the student’s
desired academic goal, whether this be obtaining a certificate, degree, or transferring to
another institution. These numbers can be tracked with the help of the various
departments involved, as well as the college’s research office and reported to the
consortium every semester. Different programs, departments and divisions can keep their
own records of the number of students contacted, admitted, and enrolled. The amount
and type of programming done for, by, and about Native students can also be tracked.
296
The Staff Development Center could track the number and type of cultural competency
workshops and seminars faculty, staff, and administrators have attended and how many
of these professionals complete this training. Additional data could be tracked including
the type of services, how frequently and by whom they are being, used as well as the
evaluations of the type and quality of services. Furthermore, Native student panels and
focus groups should be scheduled yearly or biannually to get feedback from these
students about the services and support they received and what needs have and have not
been met.
Needs Recommendations for Policy and Practice
Institutional commitment is often regarded through the creation of policy, which
not only informs but impacts practice. It is difficult to separate policy from practice
because one informs the other so both will be discussed in this section.
Recommendations for policy change include increased faculty and staff
development requirements in cultural competency proposed at the state chancellor’s
level, adopted by the district and negotiated with the faculty and classified staff unions;
policy created to connect segmented services and establish students as a whole versus as
individual paperwork; policy requirements for Cultural Awareness Center yearly
programming; outreach, recruitment, and retention policies to increase Native American
student enrollment; policy written impacting internship development and connections
with external Native communities and tribes; and greater state and federal policies
pertaining to financial assistance for students who are enrolled tribal members.
297
Recommendations for practice include cultural competency training to fulfill
increased faculty and staff development requirements, training to connect segmented
services, review of curriculum for cultural competency components, Cultural Awareness
Center yearly programming pertaining to local and national American Indian issues,
actual outreach, recruitment and retention of Native American students, involvement of
and connection to the external Native community to facilitate internships, job placement
and adding to campus diversity, and the development of financial aid infrastructure to
deal with greater state and federal policies pertaining to financial assistance for students
who are enrolled tribal members.
Cultural competency training. Internal college policies pertaining to faculty and
staff development and cultural competency can be instituted. Cultural competency
training could be as mandatory as sexual harassment training. Faculty, staff, and
administrators would be required to take a certain number of hours of cultural
competency training a year. The Staff Development Center offers different types of
training throughout the school year, and faculty and staff are required to attend ‘Flex’
workshops and seminars based on the hours they work and a variety of other factors.
Workshops, panels, or seminars could be created and facilitated by faculty who work at
the institution and/or by nationally known educators and speakers.
Culturally competent curriculum. In relation to cultural competency training, a
review of curriculum for cultural competency components should be enacted through the
curriculum committee. Faculty who put forth changes in curriculum or new curriculum
298
should be required to document sections where at least one student learning outcome is
dedicated to cultural competency. If this is not done, then the committee will recommend
the faculty member attend training prior to the approval of the course. This is already
done for distance education.
Reduce segmentation between departments. Segmentation between departments
limits or restricts services and is problematic. Policy can establish connection between
departments and hold those in power accountable for performing tasks that contribute to
student success. The segmentation of services has resulted in Native students not
achieving success. These students need some assurance that different programs,
departments and divisions are all working toward the same goal, their student success. In
viewing the student as a number associated with different types of paperwork that is
either complete or incomplete, the college is losing sight of the student as a whole, the
student who can not afford to pay rent because their financial aid has not been released
due to some small error in their paperwork. This student is getting ready to drop all of
their courses and withdraw from the college, which impacts student success numbers.
Even though financial aid may be in a different office than admissions and
records, representatives from these departments can be compelled to work together
through the development of policy that restructures how students are served. Students
can be viewed as a whole or in terms of a case file instead of individual forms handled by
different departments. Staff in these departments, can be required to review the entire
case file for inconsistencies that would prevent the student from receiving resources and
299
these students can be flagged for assistance and contacted by the department. An
individual caseworker can be assigned and serve as the advocate for the student to handle
the file and make sure everything is complete, from enrollment and academic advising to
financial aid. This way students have at least one advocate working for them within the
system. If there is a need to transfer the file to different departments then the first person
to handle the file will be the one to follow up on the student within a given timeframe.
This new system promotes working within and between departments to create a web of
support, woven to ensure student success.
Cultural programming. Requirements should be established in policy for the
Cultural Awareness Center to sponsor yearly programming representative of all
racial/ethnic groups but specifically related to the needs of Native American students.
Contemporary and historic Native American issues should be addressed several times a
semester as well as Native American Day or other special days recognized by local tribes.
The coordinator of the center should facilitate this type of programming by working with
faculty, staff, students, and Native community leaders.
Native student outreach. Outreach and recruitment and retention policies
specifically for Native American students currently do not exist. Outreach and
recruitment and retention specialists should be required to go to Native community events
to recruit Native students to Sacramento City College. Every year, California State
University, Sacramento sponsors an outreach fair for Native high school students, and
every year Sacramento City College is invited but is not represented by any of our
300
outreach or recruitment staff. Attendance at this event or others like it should be required
through policy.
Native community connections. Outreach can serve a double purpose: to recruit
Native students but also to create connections with the external Native community. This
outreach could facilitate job placement and add to the campus diversity by inviting tribal
representatives and Native community leaders to contribute to the knowledge and
diversity of the campus by speaking or facilitating workshops.
Campus programs and resources. In addition, through outreach, prospective
students should be made aware of the Native American Studies program on campus as
well as other resources like RISE and EOPS they can access while attending Sacramento
City College. This is where the consortium can help by creating a flyer, brochure, or
website of all the resources available to Native students.
Financial assistance and tribal involvement. Policy should also work on state and
federal levels pertaining to financial assistance for enrolled tribal members who are
students. One important aspect often overlooked is that students enrolled in federally
recognized tribes have an educational guarantee from the federal government through
treaty and congressional acts. Tribes, educational institutions, and states who have a
vested financial interest in community colleges should call upon the federal government
to honor treaties with Tribal Nations and congressional acts to provide education to
Native students enrolled in federally recognized tribes. An Act of Congress could be
passed that pays tuition and fees directly to colleges and universities for any tribally
301
enrolled Native student. But this would only impact a small population of Native
students. Affiliated students would not benefit from this type of program because they
are not enrolled tribal members. Affiliated students could seek financial support from
their tribes but this would be a difficult and arduous process because tribes provide for
enrolled members first and there are limited resources from the federal government. If
the tribe is financially solvent, there may be available funds, especially if the tribe views
providing funds for education as a tribal investment. Students could sign contracts to
work for the tribe for a certain number of years to pay off their college debt. In the
process, they become more dedicated to their tribe and the tribe benefits from the
educated workforce.
Program overlap and limited resources. During this time of budgetary crisis for
higher education in California, it is important to use the existing resources in a more
effective and efficient way. RISE and EOPS are two pre-existing programs that students
state they use the most for academic advising and skill labs. By reviewing the funding
sources of both RISE and EOPS and restructuring them into one encompassing program
that meets students’ needs, funds could be better used to meet additional student needs or
needs that aren’t being met now. Because students are satisfied with counseling provided
by RISE, a grant could be written to create a position for a counselor to specifically serve
Native American students in this program. An expansion of services and resources could
be provided through RISE if grant monies or funding from tribes could be established.
302
It is important to meet the needs of Native students in order to ensure student
success. When Native students succeed there are direct benefits to tribal and non-tribal
communities in the form of an educated, diverse and dedicated workforce that pays state
and federal taxes and provides a service to their community.
Barriers Recommendations
Recommendations are based in the theoretical framework, which provides a social
justice lens reinforcing liberation ideology (Friere, 1970, 1973; hooks, 1994). In
addition, the framework recognizes and validates the experiences of students of color and
that data from these students are significant to finding solutions to issues they experience
(Bell, 1987; Carrasco, 1996; Delgado, 1989, 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Olivas, 1990;
Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002).
Barriers recommendations for leadership. It takes a transformative and
transformational leader to be able to see how the barriers interconnect and how to dissect
each barrier to its core to address the needs of students and the needs of the college. First
and foremost, the college needs to recognize that within the very system and at the root of
the problem exists racism, which is ingrained in the deficit model reinforcing
assimilation. Sustained change can and should take place on a number of different levels
to meet student needs, break down barriers, and ensure student success. Each service,
program, department, and division needs to be evaluated. Institutional commitment is
regarded through changes in policy but this researcher believes that change is most
apparent through actions and Native students need actions to break down the current
303
barriers preventing their success. There is a place for policy, and it is important for
policies to be evaluated for their effects in reinforcing racism and oppression. But a
majority of the recommendations in this section will have to do with the practical
application of immediate changes that will impact Native students immediately.
Barriers recommendations for policy and practice. Recognize Native students on
campus. This was also mentioned in the needs section as an integral component of the
Native Student Success Consortium. Current programming is not enough to address the
invisibility of Native students. There needs to be more school wide programming for
Native students so that they feel they have a presence on campus. Some programming
already does take place through the Ethnic Studies/Native American Studies Program in
the form of their annual Welcome/Welcome Back, held every fall and minimally through
Cultural Awareness Center programs which pay for speakers, but this is not enough.
Additional programming could be organized and funded through the above existing
resources like a Native Student Graduation Recognition Ceremony and more workshops
could be organized for an by individual departments, Math, Science, Business, Ethnic
Studies, History, Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology. Part of recognizing
Native students on campus is recognizing that the knowledge Native students have is just
as valid, if not more than what the textbooks states. It is imperative as educational
leaders that we learn how to tap into the resources students provide about real world
experiences and how they have learned to cope, make change and be resilient.
304
As discussed in the needs policy and practice section, there is a need to institute
required cultural competency training. Staff Development has offered to sponsor Native
speakers on a variety of topics. Through this program a permanent and ever changing
workshop series to educate the educator can and should be established. Educating the
educator on Indian issues is as important as integrating diversity within the curriculum by
adding an Indigenous perspective to all courses and all disciplines. The external Native
community should be included in developing the workshops and should be tapped for
speakers thereby bringing in and validating the Native experience and presence on
campus. Other ethnic groups can also be included in this process to make cultural
competency training multicultural, but focus should be on each group not one over any
other and no one should be left out.
Staff, faculty and administrators must contribute to this process through sharing
their experiences and concerns about barriers that impact students and their ability to
succeed. The institutions greatest resources are the people who work within it for they
have insight like no other.
Cultural competency training can begin through this workshop series where
faculty, staff and administrators can receive a certificate. Educators can begin to
understand the experience of the Native students they are serving, develop empathy and
become allies. This will do away with the culturally incompetent and uncaring professor
barriers. If the workshop series is successful, it can also be integrated into the curriculum
305
and be offered to businesses to meet their cultural competency requirements by state and
federal mandates.
At the same time informative and relevant evaluations need to be created and take
place on a number of different levels in every department and program that serves
students from financial aid to admissions and records and from counseling to tutoring.
These evaluations can serve as a net to catch barriers that exist in order to further
investigate root causes and address immediate needs. Training for service providers like
tutors should be evaluated for inconsistencies and improvements should be made.
Furthermore, services and programs designed to assist students should be evaluated
periodically by students to ensure needs are being met. Evaluations provide much needed
data in order to improve student services. Data can be used to adjust training and
services.
Financial Aid workshops geared toward Native students need to take place
periodically every semester. This researcher realizes that there are open financial aid labs
but this does not mean the Native student can attend or ask for help if they don’t
understand the information being provided. At the beginning of the changes to this
department there needs to be at least one person who covers Native student cases in order
for policy inconsistencies to be addressed.
To remedy the issue with students not being able to afford a textbook, some
professors have chosen to go digital and provide free copies or access to free copies for
students online. Other faculty have given up on assigning readings all together and have
306
chosen to provide information in lectures because they have determined that even if
students had access to textbooks, they would not do the readings because students don’t
have time and media is processed differently because of technology.
As far as transportation issues, some students overcome this barrier while others
don’t know how to cope with this issue other than by withdrawing from the college. The
college has addressed this issue somewhat with a bus pass included with student fees, but
this is only during the fall and spring semesters, not the summer. Another strategy has
been student carpools. One other way to deal with this situation is to offer more courses
online or at outreach centers where students can obtain easier access to learning.
Tribes should invest in enrolled and affiliated members by providing financial and
academic support in terms of tutoring. In order to benefit from the education of enrolled
and affiliated members tribes should create contracts where loans will be forgiven when
students work for the tribe in the area in which their discipline is needed. Furthermore,
this researcher sees the need for a connection between internal and external networks of
people, services and resources for Native students to succeed.
Resiliency recommendations for leadership. A transformational and
transformative leader is one that supports and recognizes the strengths and skills in
others. It is imperative that administrators, faculty and staff in institutes of higher
education give honor to and respect diverse resiliency characteristics that Native students
employ. It behooves the institution to look at resiliency factors as strengths of Native
students in order to build on these and promote student success.
307
Resiliency recommendations for policy and practice. There are no
recommendations for policy changes in this area. As for recommendations for practice,
programs and services that teach skills are needed to build more resiliency characteristics
and there is a call from Native students to have some formalized system where this can
occur. This researcher recommends employing a cohort model for Native students. This
way Native students can garner support from a group of students like themselves,
learning the same skills to succeed. Additionally as part of that cohort program Native
students will pair off with other Native students who have been at the college for at least
a year. This way additional skills and information can be passed down from one
generation of college students to the next ensuring some resiliency characteristics
transfer.
308
Figure 16. Native Student Success Consortium
309
Overall Recommendations for Leadership
It will take a transformative and transformational leader to institute changes in
policy and practice. A leader understands that services are interconnected. When
students have a problem with one type of service, ex: financial aid, barriers arise. Policy
must be evaluated for racist undertones and revised in order to begin removing the
barriers that exist. Because the system is interconnected, removing one barrier and
empowering others to change will begin the process of removing additional barriers.
Once barriers are gone and Native students needs are met, student success will prevail.
A leader also recognizes the strength in individuals and their connections to
family and community. Connections to the greater Native community need to be
established for outreach and the understanding that comes with cultural awareness or
knowledge.
A person who has access to resources both at the educational level and within the
Native community would be a good hire for Sacramento City College either as a
professor, academic counselor, financial aid advisor or administrator to oversee the
Native Student Success Consortium. It will take more than one person to make the
changes needed within the system. A team of likeminded interested faculty, staff and
administrators would be ideal to work with to address the barriers and needs of Native
students.
310
Overall Recommendations for Policy
Allow for students to have access to people with power in order for them to
understand the policies and procedures. Too many people who do not have power to
make changes or assist students with their needs are being used as stop-gap measures to
prevent students from trying to take advantage of the system. In this environment of
budgetary cuts and difficult financial times, more and more regulation is taking place in
order to ‘manage’ enrollment. This regulation is actually preventing our students from
being successful because there is no flexibility within the system to deal with the various
problems of Native students. From the data it sounds like the problems are caused more
by clerical error or by students not having the information they need to fill out the
paperwork correctly. In any case, policy can be restricting and can overlap to create a
barrier to student success. Newly instated policies must be reviewed for inconsistencies
and ‘traps’ in which students can fall and never regain their steps to success.
Overall Recommendations for Practice
Financial aid workshops designed for and by Native students should happen at
least twice a semester. A student peer buddy system established to pair new incoming
students with students who are graduating or transferring should be established in order
for students to pass on information about how to navigate the system. This would also
serve to connect incoming Native students with outgoing Native students and would
promote a network that would expand beyond Sacramento City College into the four-year
311
systems. Students would ideally remain in contact with each other and assist each other
in transferring which would reinforce higher degree obtainment.
In response to the finding that instructors are still utilizing the deficit thinking
model this researcher is going to be developing a series of workshops that address what
to do in the classroom when students know more about a topic than the professor and
more specifically, create workshops that are meant to inform educators about historic and
contemporary Native American issues. Educating Educators workshop/seminar series
should be offered as FLEX credit for faculty and staff campus wide. Through this
process curriculum and teaching would change and professors would feel more confident
in discussing Native issues in their classes which would in turn impact Native and nonNative students eliminating stereotypes.
Every person who works for admissions and records or for financial aid should
have the ability to fix any given situation instead of waiting for their supervisors to
review the case and act on it weeks to months later. By allowing students access to
people with power to help, they feel empowered to take their educational success into
their own hands.
In addition the institution needs to be able to monitor and evaluate
services/ programs that provide students with resources in order to make changes to
better serve this population.
And then if we had more of an organized effort in that way structured through the
university rather than just Native people trying to help each other. (Focus Group
3, Student 13, p. 17, lines 21-23).
312
This idea has inspired this researcher to create a model by which internal and
external barriers can be removed with a two prong approach: restructuring of existing
services and incorporation of new policies to meet student’s needs.
Figure 17. Application of the Student Success Equation/Bridges Model
313
Recommendations for Further Research
It is recommended by this researcher that an additional study be done specifically
focusing on Yosso’s (2005) Cultural Capital Wealth model in order to determine the
diverse types of capital that impact Native American students. Where these types of
capital come from and in what category they should reside, (i.e., is it a resiliency
characteristic, a need or does a lack of capital equate to a barrier) should be determined.
Future studies should delve into the connections between the Cultural Capital Wealth
model and needs, barriers and resiliency characteristics.
Additionally, more research on resiliency characteristics needs to be done to
determine which characteristics students come to higher education with and which
characteristics they need to learn. If this can be determined, then workshops teaching
specific skills can be offered and students could build skills immediately, which would
contribute to their overall timely success.
The efficacy and effectiveness of the Native American Studies program on Native
American Community College Students is a needed study. An overall evaluation of the
Native Studies program would provide this researcher with data that could be utilized to
better the program, serve students better and possibly serve more students. This
evaluation would contribute to outreach because the researcher would need to obtain
information from various sources. It would also allow for an internal audit of the
program, whom it serves and its purpose. This audit would allow the researcher to make
fundamental changes to the program in order to better serve students. Additional
314
research should be done correlating tribal affiliation, tribal enrollment and grade point
average to determine the long-term effects and impact of the achievement gap.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. The limited small sample size living
primarily in the Sacramento and surrounding area and the fact that the students who
participated in this study do not represent all the Native students at the college nor within
the United States is a limitation. The urban location of the community college is a
limitation because fewer Natives who live on any reservation are in attendance. The fact
that the researcher who is conducting the study is a self-identified, non-enrolled Lakota
and an adjunct faculty member who teaches the only Native studies classes at the college
is another limitation. This researcher knew in passing a majority of the students who
participated in this study. Students were not asked to provide documentation of their
tribal enrollment, GPA, units enrolled or units taken. The number and type of survey and
focus group questions were a limitation. This researcher did not ask students questions
about racism and oppression and how they either saw or didn’t see this impacting their
educational success. In addition no questions were asked about capital.
Conclusion
Institutes of education promote and reinforce assimilation, requiring a complete
transformation of Native students, which serves as a reminder of colonization and historic
315
trauma. When policies and procedures make no sense to the student and they cannot
connect them in any way to their experience, these policies act as oppressive forces that
prevent student success. Oppressive policy is a reminder of early experiences of Natives
with boarding schools and higher education, which is part of historic trauma.
Native students are losing their footing on the bridge to success when it comes to
problems with services. According to students offices are not communicating with each
other. Admissions and Records is not communicating with Financial Aid and vice versa.
There is no one-stop-shop where a student and take care of everything at one time. As a
recommendation, because of the use of new technology that assists in student
recordkeeping, the offices of admissions and records should combine with the registrar’s
office and with financial aid, reduce the number of workers and take students case by
case to deal with inconsistencies and problems with their data/files. Workers in this
system would have the power to change things directly with access to managers or
administrators who would approve these changes daily so that financial aid will be on
time and accurate.
Cultural competency training and evaluations of all programs and services need to
take place because leaders must have a place to begin, a place to understand where
changes need to happen. The situation cannot continue in its present state. Faculty, staff
and administrators play a integral role in creating and facilitating workshops and fair and
accurate evaluations.
316
Native students should feel entitled to a quality education with fair representation
of their diverse tribal groups because it has been guaranteed over and over again through
treaties, which are land deals. In exchange for land, Native people were to receive
education and a variety of other resources that would assist them and their tribes in being
self-sufficient. This will happen when tribes team up with institutes of education to
demand restitution funding from the federal government.
From a researcher’s standpoint, this study has been difficult yet rewarding.
Problems with research and data collection alone have been taxing, not to mention the
countless hours writing and rewriting the information to accurately represent Native
students who participated in this study so their voices will be heard.
This researcher began this study wanting help Native students. In seeing them
struggle though the years with so many different issues, it became imperative that
something be done. In the end, the story that unfolds in these pages is as much the story
of the researcher as a Native student herself, as it is the story of the Native student’s who
participated in this research.
Now that needs, barriers and resiliency characteristics have been determined, it is
time to apply this information and make changes to systems of education so that Native
students can achieve their long awaited success and begin to contribute to their
communities, tribes/nations.
The following example is a reminder that future generations of Native students
are coming and they will expect nothing less than success on their own terms from a
317
place of power and strength in who they are and what they need to do to continue the
survival of our people.
The other day I was doing a presentation to elementary school kids about the
importance of college and there was a little girl who was like, "I'm a Pueblo
Indian." And I was like, "Oh, really?" And she goes, "Yeah." She said, "I want to
study Native American culture." I was like, "You know, we have a Native
American studies program on this campus." And her eyes glowed. She was just
so -- she was so happy. I knew she was so happy. I had never seen a kid so
happy in my life. (Focus Group 2, Female Native Student 9, p. 37, lines 11-19)
318
APPENDICES
319
Appendix A
Survey of Student Success
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the
answer or do not wish to answer a question, please leave it blank or go to the next
question. Please complete this survey by checking the appropriate box for your selected
response, writing your answers in the blank line, or space below the statement. If a
question/answer does not relate to you or your experience please place N/A indicating
that it does not apply to you.
Demographic Information
D1. Are you: Female 
Male 
D2. What is your age?*
__________
D3. What is your marital status?
Single 
Separated 
Married 
Domestic Partnership 
D4a. Do you have children who live with you?
Yes 
Divorced 
No 
D4b. If yes to the above question, please indicate how many children live with you
__________
D5. What is your annual (yearly) household income range?
0-2000
2001-5000
5001-8000
8001-10,000
10,001-12,000
12,001-15,000
15,001-18,000
18,001-20,000
20,001-25,000
25,001-30,000
30,001-35,000
35,001-40,000
40,001-45,000
45,001-50,000
50,001-55,000
55,001-60,000
60,001-65,000
65,001-70,000
70,001-75,000
75,001-80,000
80,001-85,000
85,001-90,000
90,001-95,000
95,001-100,000 +
D6. Do you receive financial aid? Yes  No 
D7. What is your race/ethnicity: (mark all that apply)*
American Indian/Native American


Asian/Pacific Islander/Filipino
320
African American/Black

Caucasian/White

Other:______________________


Latino

Mexican American

Other:_______________________
D8. What is/are your tribal affiliation (s):
________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
D9. Are you an enrolled member of your tribe?
D10. Is your tribe federally recognized?
Yes 
Yes 
D11. Do you receive financial support form your tribe?
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
D12. If you chose yes please indicate what type of financial support:
__________________________________________________________________
D13. Do you live on a reservation?
Yes 
No 
D14. Do you live in an urban area?
Yes 
No 
D15. Do you live in a rural/non-reservation area? Yes  No 
D16. Approximately how many miles do you commute from home to college?
__________
D17. How many community college, tribal college or junior college credit hours have
you
earned prior to this semester?* _____
D18. From where did you obtain these credit hours or units:
____________________________
D19. Did you graduate from: high school 
GED 
Neither 
D20. Did you take college preparatory courses in high school? Yes 
D21. What is the highest level of education obtained by your Father?
No 
321
Not a high school graduate 
High school diploma or GED 
Some college, did not complete 
Associates degree 
Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree 
Doctorate 
Unknown 
D22. What is the highest level of education obtained by your Mother?
Not a high school graduate 
High school diploma or GED 
Some college, did not complete 
Associates degree 
Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree 
Doctorate 
Unknown 
D23. With whom do you live while pursuing your education? (mark all that apply)
I live alone  Spouse/Partner  With my child or children  My parent(s)

Other relatives  Friends who are students  Friends who are not students 
D24. What is your overall GPA? _____
D25. What is your current major: ___________________(if undecided, please state
undecided)
D26. In which college(s) are you currently enrolled?
______________________________________________________________________
D27. For how many units are you enrolled (in each institution listed above)
______________________________________________________________________
D28. Do you mostly take classes: daytime (before 5pm)  evening (after 5pm) 
online 
D29. What are your educational goals?
322
A few classes at the community college 
Degree 
Bachelor’s Degree 
A Certificate 
Master’s Degree 
Associates
PhD 
D30. After finishing your studies, do you plan to?
Transfer to a four-year college 
Get a job or begin a career 
I am undecided about this 
Other plans not listed 
D31. Since high school, which of the following types of schools have you attended
(do not count the one you are attending) (Please mark all that apply)
Private school or training program 
Public vocational-technical school
Another community or technical college 
4 year college or university 
Tribal college 
None 

* qualifying criteria questions
Are you interested in being involved in a follow up focus group or interview?
Yes 
No 
If you answered yes to the above question and signed the consent form that indicates you
are interested, please provide contact information below:
Contact Information: ___________________________________________
(Please either provide a phone number or email address. If you are providing an
email
address please make sure there are no identifying names or numbers in the
address.)
If you have questions or concerns about the focus group session or interview please
contact Tamara Cheshire at 916-925-4217. Thank you for taking the time to help with
this study.
323
Survey of Student Success continued
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer
or do not wish to answer a question, please leave it blank or go to the next question. Please
complete this survey by checking the appropriate box for your selected response, writing your
answers in the blank line, or space below the statement. If a question/answer does not relate to
you or your experience please place N/A indicating that it does not apply to you.
SECTION 1 – QUESTIONS REGARDING CAPITAL OR RESOURCES AND BARRIERS
(Family involvement and support & Community involvement and support)
S1Q1. How supportive is your immediate/extended family of your attending this
college?
Extremely 
quite a bit 
somewhat 
not very  not at all 

N/A
S1Q2. How supportive are your friends of you attending this college?
Extremely 
quite a bit  somewhat 
not very  not at all 

N/A
S1Q3. How supportive is your community of you attending this college?
Extremely 
quite a bit  somewhat 
not very  not at all 

N/A
S1Q4. How supportive is your tribe of you attending this college?
Extremely 
quite a bit 
somewhat  not very  not at all 

N/A
S1Q5. How often do you participate in tribal or Native community activities?
Often 
Sometimes 
Rarely 
not at all  Never 
S1Q6. Which best represents the quality of your relationships with the following people
at this college?
(please circle the choice that best reflects your experience)
People
Quality of your relationship
Students
Friendly
Supportive
Sense of
belonging
Unfriendly
Unsupportive
Sense of
alienation
Instructors
Available
Helpful
Sympathetic
Unavailable
Unhelpful
Not
sympathetic
Administration
Helpful
Considerate
Flexible
Unhelpful
Inconsiderate
Rigid
324
S1Q7. How much have your experiences at this college contributed to your knowledge,
skills and resources base?
Experiences
Very
Quite a
Some Very
Not at
much
bit
little
all
Acquiring job or work-related
knowledge /skills
Using computing information
technology
Working effectively with others/
under standing people of other
ethnic groups
Understanding yourself
Contributing to the welfare of
your tribe or community
Developing clearer career goals
Gaining information about
career opportunities
S1Q8. To what degree do each of the following student characteristics below serve as
barriers to your academic success? Rate each characteristic according to the scale
provided.
N/A
Student Characteristics
Major Moderate Minor No
(does
barrier barrier
barrier barrier not
No
apply)
effect
on
success
Lack of motivation to succeed
Inadequate preparation for
college-level work
Inadequate study skills
First generation to attend college
Commuting/living off campus
Socio-economic disadvantage
Indecision about major
Indecision about career goal
Inadequate financial resources
Physical health problems
Mental or emotional health
problems
325
Lack of support from significant
others (spouse, partner, parents,
family, community, peers, tribe)
Too many family demands
Too many job demands
No social integration (peer group
interaction, extracurricular
activities)
No academic integration
Distance from permanent home
Inadequate coping skills
Other:_____________________
____________
S1Q9. How likely is it that the following issues would cause you to withdraw from class
or from this college?
Factors/Issues
Very
Likely Somewhat
Not
likely
likely
likely
Working full time
Caring for dependents
Academically unprepared
Lack of finances
Personal motivation
Computer access
Restrictive admissions practices
Bureaucratic financial aid services
Bureaucratic academic advising
Judgmental attitude of faculty or staff
toward students
Limited academic support services
No available housing
Limited number & variety of courses
Racially biased professor
Transportation issues
Transfer to a 4 year college or
university
Other:
____________________________
326
SECTION 2 - QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR PRECOLLEGE ACADEMIC
PREPARATION OR HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCE:
S2Q1. In general, how would you rate your high school
Above Average  Average 
Below average 
Not sure 
S2Q2. When you were in high school, which of the following was helpful or served as a
barrier in preparing you for college?
Very
Helpful Neither Barrier Major Does
Factors
Helpful
helpful
Barrier not
nor
apply
barrier
Taking college
preparatory courses
Taking college or
university courses
Teachers
Counselors
Fellow classmates
Friends at school
Parents
Family
Career Center
Tutoring
Academic preparation
(learned skills)
Participation in precollege programs (Upward
Bound, Alpha Academy,
AVID)
Visiting a four-year
institution
Visiting a community
college
Summer Bridge Program
Other, specify:
327
SECTION 3 – QUESTIONS REGARDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT
S3Q1. Do you believe you have enough financial support to achieve your academic
goal(s)?
Yes 
No 
S3Q2. Indicate which of the following are sources you use to pay your tuition at this
college
(please respond to each item)
Resource
Major
Minor
Not a
Source
Source
source
my own income/savings
parent income/savings
Spouse/significant other’s income/savings
employer contributions
grants and scholarships
student loans (bank, etc.)
Tribal monies (per cap, individual Indian
monies, etc.)
public assistance
SECTION 4 – QUESTIONS REGARDING FACULTY AND COURSEWORK
S4Q1. To what extent have your professors contributed to your academic development?
Very  Somewhat 
Not very  Not at all 
N/A 
S4Q2. To what extent are your professors involved in your academic success?
Very  Somewhat 
Not very  Not at all 
N/A 
S4Q3. How important is each of the following to your academic success:
Factors Regarding Faculty &
Very Somewhat Not
Not
Coursework
very
at all
Clear & interesting lectures or lab
Class participation
Encouragement and respect from
professors
Good use of classroom technology
Fair exams and other evaluations
Clear feedback
Good textbooks
Useful homework
Clear course materials
N/A
328
Working in groups in class
Clear expectations about
requirements
Tutor availability
Chance to choose between many
sections
Class size
Class time
Access to computers and other
resources
Feeling welcome in the class
Participating in learning
communities
Doing remedial/developmental
coursework
Participating in service learning
programs
Other:
Other:
SECTION 5 – QUESTIONS REGARDING INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT/SUPPORT
S5Q1. How often do you use the following services?
Services
Often Sometimes Rarely Never Don’t N/A
know
Academic advising
Career counseling
Job placement assistance
Peer or other tutoring
Skill labs (math lab, etc.)
Child care
Financial aid advising
Computer lab
Student organizations
Transfer credit assistance
Services to student with
disabilities
EOPS
RISE
329
S5Q2. If used, how satisfied are you with the following services?
Services
Very Somewhat
Not at all
Academic advising
Career counseling
Job placement assistance
Peer or other tutoring
Skill labs (math lab, etc.)
Child care
Financial aid advising
Computer lab
Student organizations
Transfer credit assistance
Services to student with disabilities
EOPS
RISE
Assessment Center
S5Q3. How important are the services to you at this college?
Services
Very Somewhat
Academic advising
Career counseling
Job placement assistance
Peer or other tutoring
Skill labs (math lab, etc.)
Child care
Financial aid advising
Computer lab
Student organizations
Transfer credit assistance
Services to student with disabilities
EOPS
RISE
Assessment
S5Q4. How much does this college emphasize the following?
Factors
Very
much
Encouraging time spent on studying
Providing support needed to ensure your success
Encouraging interaction among students from
diverse backgrounds (racial/ethnic, economic,
social, etc.)
Helping you cope with non-academic
responsibilities (family, work, childcare, etc.)
N/A
Not at all
N/A
Quite a
bit
Some
Very
little
330
Providing support to thrive socially
Providing financial support
Contribute to the welfare of your community
Solving complex real-world problems
Understanding yourself
Rules and regulations/policy
Voting in local, state, tribal or national elections
Attendance at campus events and activities
(speakers, cultural events, athletic events, etc.)
S5Q5. How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this college?
Excellent 
Good 
Fair 
Poor 
S5Q6. Would you recommend this college to a friend or family member? Yes 
No 
S5Q7. If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now
attending?
Definitely yes 
Probably yes 
Probably no 
Definitely no

Section 6 - Resiliency
Which of the following were, or have been, the most important resiliency factors with regard to
your academic success? Please rank only the top five with “1” being the most likely factor, and
“5” being the least. (For example, if scholarship money was most important in helping you stay
in college, that would be marked “1”, if mentoring possibilities were second most important, this
would be ranked “2” and so on, through “5”.)
Resiliency Factors (contributing to academic success)
S6R1. Scholarship/Financial Support (any scholarships or monetary
support that helped you stay in school)
S6R2. Mentors (mentoring provided by college faculty or others)
S6R3. Salary (knowing a stable job will probably be available upon
graduation)
S6R4. Role Model (wanting to serve as a role model for students of
color, as well as all students)
S6R5. Family Support (emotional support from either family of origin:
parents/siblings/aunts/uncles/grandparents, or your own family: life
partner/children)
S6R6. Time spent with family (opportunity to have greater quality
Rank
331
time with children and family due to your work/school schedule)
S6R7. Friend/Peer Support (emotional support from friends or college
peers)
S6R8. Social/Community Support (support from the larger
community, e.g. civic group, social groups, church groups, tribe)
S6R9. High School Preparatory Support (vocational guidance or high
school prep courses that have been instrumental to your college
success)
S6R10. Spiritual Support (support for a Higher Power, through prayer,
chanting, meditation, ceremony, etc. If support was more social in
nature, please use number 8 Social/Community Support instead)
S6R11. Other Factor (please provide a description of the factor:
(And note its importance in the right-hand column)
S6R12. Other Factor (please provide a description of the factor:
(And note its importance in the right-hand column)
Taken from Holt, Mahowald and DeVore (2002), Ranking Resiliency Factors.
If you have questions or concerns about the focus group session or interview please
contact Tamara Cheshire at 916-925-4217. Thank you for taking the time to help with
this study.
332
Appendix B
Focus Group Questions
Focus group and individual interview questions
Questions will be based on the original research questions as outlined in this study:
What are the academic and personal needs of American Indian community college
students?
What are the perceived barriers that American Indian students face at the community
college level?
What are the resiliency and persistence characteristics employed by American Indian
community college students that contribute to student success?
1. What is your tribal membership or affiliation? Where were you raised?
2. Where do you currently reside?
3. As of right now, how many community college units have you taken?
4. How do you feel about your experience as a community college student?
5. What educational services or resources have been helpful to you? What is it
about these resources or services that have made them helpful?
6. Which educational services have been frustrating? What is it about these services
that have made them frustrating?
7. What do you see as the barriers to obtaining academic success?
8. How does your family, community, tribe feel about you attending college?
9. What is your primary goal at this community college and what has motivated you
to attend this college in particular?
10. What are your greatest resources that you believe positively impact your
academic success?
333
11. What cultural values have helped you to achieve success at the community
college?
12. What are the greatest barriers that could prevent you from achieving your goals?
13. What are the needs of Native students at the community college level?
14. What factors could cause Native students to not complete their educational goals?
15. Which of these factors is most important? Could you rank them in order of
importance?
16. How can the community college better serve American Indian students?
17. How will completing your educational goals affect your ability to get a job?
334
Appendix C
Consent Forms
Survey Consent Form
You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Tamara Cheshire, Adjunct Professor of
Anthropology and Ethnic Studies/Native American Studies at Sacramento City College, Adjunct
Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Sacramento and doctoral student in the
Educational Leadership and Policy Program at California State University, Sacramento. It is my
hope to learn about factors impacting American Indian community college student success. As
an American Indian community college student, your experience with education is important to
understanding how Native students succeed.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey while in
attendance at the Indigenous student ‘Welcome/Welcome Back’ event held fall semester 2011,
which should take no longer than 30-45 minutes. If you decide to volunteer for the second phase
of the study consisting of a focus group or interview, this will take place at a later date, held at
Sacramento City College (exact location to be determined by the researcher), which will take no
longer than sixty minutes. A separate consent form will be provided for the focus group or
interview.
Some of the questions in the survey may seem personal and you do not have to answer the
questions if you do not want to. You have the right to skip any questions and/or stop
participating at any time without consequence and upon request you may be provided with
contact information to a college counselor or outside counseling services. Surveys that are not
complete may not be usable by the researcher. The long-term goal of this study is to help
American Indian students succeed at the community college level. There is no guarantee that you
will receive any benefits from this study.
Information obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. If your
permission is to be required for disclosure, you will be asked to complete a separate form at a
later date. Steps will be taken to ensure participant privacy like assigning pseudonyms or
numbers to participants.
Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with
Sacramento City College or with California State University, Sacramento. If you decide to
participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time
without penalty.
If you have any questions, please ask. If you have any additional questions, later on please feel
free to contact Tamara Cheshire at 916-925-4217. She will be happy to answer them. Or you can
contact Dr. Carlos Nevarez at 916-278-2282. You will be given a copy of this form to keep.
335
You are making a decision whether or not to participate in this study. Your signature below
indicates that you have read the information above and have decided to participate in the survey
phase of this study.
Print Participants Name _____________________ Signature:
________________________Date:______
Contact
Information:__________________________________________________________________________
Researcher’s Name ________________________ Signature:
________________________Date:_______
Researcher’s Phone Number (include area code): _____________________________________
336
Focus Group/Interview Consent Form
You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Tamara Cheshire, Adjunct Professor of
Anthropology and Ethnic Studies/Native American Studies at Sacramento City College, Adjunct
Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Sacramento and doctoral student in the
Educational Leadership and Policy Program at California State University, Sacramento. It is my
hope to learn about factors impacting American Indian community college student success. As
an American Indian community college student, your experience with education is important to
understanding how Native students succeed.
If you decide to participate in this phase of the study consisting of a focus group or interview, this
will take place at a later date, held at Sacramento City College (exact location to be determined
by the researcher), which will take no longer than sixty minutes. You will be contacted to
schedule a meeting time.
Some of the questions asked during the focus group/interview may seem personal and you do not
have to answer the questions if you do not want to. You have the right to skip any questions
and/or stop participating at any time without consequence and upon request you may be provided
with contact information to a college counselor or outside counseling services. The long-term
goal of this study is to help American Indian students succeed at the community college level.
There is no guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this study.
Information obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. If your
permission is to be required for disclosure, you will be asked to complete a separate form at a
later date. Steps will be taken to ensure participant privacy like assigning pseudonyms or
numbers to participants.
Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with
Sacramento City College or with California State University, Sacramento. If you decide to
participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time
without penalty.
If you have any questions, please ask. If you have any additional questions, later on please feel
free to contact Tamara Cheshire at 916-925-4217. She will be happy to answer them. Or you can
contact Dr. Carlos Nevarez at 916-278-2282. You will be given a copy of this form to keep.
337
You are making a decision whether or not to participate in this study. Your signature below
indicates that you have read the information above and have decided to participate in the focus
group/interview phase of this study.
Print Participants Name _____________________ Signature:
________________________Date:______
Contact
Information:__________________________________________________________________________
Researcher’s Name ________________________ Signature:
________________________Date:_______
Researcher’s Phone Number (include area code): _____________________________________
338
REFERENCES
Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding
school experience, 1875-1928. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Adams, D. W. (1975). The Federal Indian board school: A study of environment and
response, 1879-1918. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Allen, C. (2002). Blood Narrative: Indigenous identities in American Indian and Maori
literary and activist texts. Duke University Press.
American Indian College Fund. (2007). Facts educating the mind and spirit. Retrieved
from http://www.collegefund.org/downloads/FactSheet_2007.pdf
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. (2000). Tribal college contributions to
local economic development. Prepared for the Tribal College Research and
Database Initiative. Washington, DC: AIHEC and the Institute for Higher
Education Policy.
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. (2005). IMS Fact Book 2005: Tribal
colleges and universities report. Retrieved from
http://www.aihec.org/resources/documents/ AIHEC_AIMS_2005FactBook.pdf
Anderson, S. R., Belcourt, G. M., & Langwell, K. M. (2005). Building healthy tribal
nations in Montana and Wyoming through collaborative research and
development. American Journal of Public Health, 95(5) 784-789.
Akers, C. H. (1990). An analysis of the success rate of American Indian students as
related to enrollment at selected institutions of higher education. Unpublished
Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Arrieta, R. M. (Jan. 3, 2011). The state of Native America: Very unemployed and mostly
ignored. In These time with liberty and justice for all. Retrieved from
http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6801/the_state_of_native_america_v
ery_unemployed_and_mostly_ignored/
Astin, A. A. (1982). Minorities in American higher education. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Auerbach, S. (2001) Under co-construction: parent role in promoting college access for
students of color. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles.
339
Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., DarlingHammond, L.,…McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232-276). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska
native ways of knowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23.
Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2004). Culture, chaos and complexity: Catalysts for
change in Indigenous education. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 27(4), 59-64.
Barnhardt, C. (1994). Life on the other side: Native student survival in a university world.
Peabody Journal of Education, 69, 115–139.
Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in first nations education: A
literature review with recommendations. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada.
Beaulieu, D. (2000). Comprehensive reform and American Indian education. Journal of
American Indian Education, 39(2), 29-38.
Baxter, P. J. (2009). Identifying strategies for Native American student success in
community colleges: A qualitative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New
Mexico State University.
Belcourt-Dittloff, A. E. (2006). Resiliency and risk in Native American communities: A
culturally informed investigation. University of Montana, Missoula, MO;
unpublished dissertation.
Belgarde, M. J. (1992). The performance and persistence of American Indian
undergraduate students at Stanford University. Unpublished Dissertation,
Stanford University, Palo Alto.
Belgarde, M. J., & Lore, R. 2003. The retention/intervention study of native American
undergraduates at the University of New Mexico. J. College Student Retention
5(2), 175-203.
Bell, D. (1987). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York:
Basic Books.
340
Benjamin, D. P., Chambers, S., & Reiterman, G. (1993). A focus on American Indian
college persistence. Journal of American Indian Education, 32(1), 24–30.
Berry, B. (1968). The education of the American Indians: A survey of the literature. U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Final Report.
Bitsoi, L.L. (2007). Native leaders in the new millennium: An examination of success
factors of Native American males at Harvard college. University of
Pennsylvania, unpublished dissertation.
Bliss, C. J. (1975). Capital theory and the distribution of income. New York.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C., (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York:
Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1973) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.),
Knowledge, education and cultural change (pp. 71-112). London: Tavistock.
Bowman,N. (2003). Cultural differences of teaching and learning: A Native American
perspective participating in educational systems and organizations. American
Indian Quarterly, 27(1), 91-102. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=aph&AN=14611963&site=ehost-live
Boyer,P. (1997). Native American colleges: Progress and prospects. A special report.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Brave Heart, M. Y. H., & DeBruyn, L. M. (1998). The American Indian Holocaust:
Healing unresolved historical grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental
Health Research, 8(2), 56-78.
Brave Heart-Jordan, M. & Debruyn, L. (1995). So she may walk in balance: Integrating
the impact of historical trauma in the treatment of Native American women. In, J.
Adleman & G.M. Enguidanos (Eds.), Racism in the lives of women: Testimony,
theory, and guides to antiracist practice (pp. 345-368). New York: Haworth.
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2006). Toward a Tribal Critical Race Theory in Education. Urban
Review, 37(5), 425-446
341
Brayboy, B. (2005). Transformational resistance and social justice: American Indians in
Ivy League universities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(3), 193-211.
Brayboy, B. (2004). Hiding in the ivy: American Indian students and visibility in elite
educational settings. Harvard Educational Review, 74(2), 125-152.
Brayboy, B. (1999). Climbing the ivy: Examining the experiences of academically
successful Native American Indian students in two Ivy League universities.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Brod, R. L., & McQuiston, J.M. (1983). American Indian Adult education and literacy:
The first national survey. Journal of American Indian Education, 22(2),1-16.
Brown, L. L. (1995). Psychosocial factors influencing academic persistence of American
Indian college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1995)
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 04A.
Brown, L. L., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors influencing
academic persistence of American Indian college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 38, 3-12.
Burkhart, B. (2004). What Coyote and Tales can teach us: An outline of American Indian
epistemology. In A. Waters (Ed.), American Indian thought: Philosophical essays
(pp. 15-26). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Capurso, M. P. (2008). The light in which we are: Evolution of Indian identity in the
schooling of Native Americans in the United States. University of the Pacific,
Stockton, California; unpublished dissertation.
Carney, C. M. (1999). Native American higher education in the United States. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Castagno, A. E. (2005). Extending the bounds of race and racism: Indigenous women and
the persistence of the Black-White paradigm of race. Urban Review, 37(5), 447468.
Castagno, A., & Lee, S. (2007). Native mascots and ethnic fraud in higher education:
Using Tribal Critical Race Theory and the interest convergence principle as an
analytic tool. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(1), 3 –13.
342
Census 2010 Redistricting Data Summary File, (2011). California Department of
Finance Demographic Research Unit, State Census Data Center. Table 4A Total
Population by Race (1): April 1, 2010. Incorporated Cities and Census
Designated Places (CDP) by County in California.
Censky, A. (September 13, 2011). Poverty rate rises in America. CNN Money.
Chang, R. S. (1998). Who’s afraid of Tiger Woods? Chicano-Latino Law Review, 19,
223.
Chang, R. S. (1993). Toward an Asian American legal scholarship: critical race theory,
poststructuralism, and narrative space. California Law Review, 19, 1243.
Chee, C.L. (2008). Academic persistence of Native American Undergraduates. Arizona
State University, unpublished dissertation.
Cole, James S., Gypsy M. Denzine. 2002. Comparing the academic engagement of
american indian and white college students. Journal of American Indian
Education, 41(1): 9-34.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology 94(Supplement), 95-120.
Crenshaw, K. (1993). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and the
violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics.
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167
Crenshaw, K. (1988). Race, reform, retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in
anti-discrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101, 1331-1387.
Cummins, B. (1992). The empowerment of Indian students. In J. Reyhner (Ed.),
Teaching American Indian students (pp. 3-12). Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2000). Critical race theory: The cutting edge (2nd ed.).
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Delgado, R. (1996). The coming race war?: and other apocalyptic tales of America after
affirmative action and welfare (New York, New York University Press).
343
Delgado, R. (1995a). Critical race theory: The cutting edge (Philadelphia, PA, Temple
University Press).
Delgado, R. (1995b). The Rodrigo chronicles: conversations about America and race
(New York, New York University Press).
Delgado, R. (1993). On telling stories in school: a reply to Farber and Sherry. Vanderbilt
Law Review, 46, 665-676.
Delgado, R. (1992). The imperial scholar revisited: how to marginalize outsider writing,
ten years later, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1349-1372.
Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative.
Michigan Law Review, 87, 2411-2441.
Delgado, R. (1984). The imperial scholar: reflections on a review of civil rights literature.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132, 561-578.
Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical racegendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of
knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105-126.
Delgado Bernal, D., & Villalpando, O. (2002). An apartheid of knowledge in academia:
The struggle over the ‘legitimate’ knowledge of faculty of color. Journal of
Equity and Excellence in Education 35(2), 169-180.
Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Critical Race Theory: An introduction. New York: New York
University Press.
Delgado Bernal, D. (1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational
research. Harvard Educational Review, 68, 555-582.
Delgado Bernal, D. (1997). Chicana school resistance and grassroots leadership:
providing an alternative history of the 1968 East Los Angeles blowouts.
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
DeJong, D. H. (1993). Promises of the Past: A history of Indian education. Golden,
Colo.: Fulcrum.
Deloria, E. (1988). Waterlily. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deloria, V. (1970). We talk, you listen: New tribes, new turf. New York: Macmillan.
344
Deloria, V. (1969). Custer died for your sins. New York: Avon.
Deloria V., & Wildcat, D. (2001). Power and Place: Indian Education in America.
Golden, CO: American Indian Graduate Center and Fulcrum Resources.
Deyhle, D., & Swisher, K. (1997). Research in American Indian and Alaska Native
Education: From assimilation to self-determination. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review of
research in education, 22, 113-194.
Deyhle, D. (1995). Navajo youth and Anglo racism: Cultural integrity and resistance.
Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 403-444.
Deyhle, D. & Margonis, F. (1995). Navajo mothers and daughters: Schools, jobs, and the
family. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 26(2), 135-167.
Deyhle, D. (1992). Constructing failure and maintaining cultural identity: Navajo and Ute
school leavers. Journal of American Indian Education, 31, 24-47.
Drummer, K. S. (2009). A Chippewa Cree students’ college experience: Factors
affecting persistence. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana;
unpublished dissertation.
Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization of participation structures in wo
classrooms of Indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of
schooling (pp. 132-174). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Espinoza, L.G. (1990). Masks and other disguises: Exposing legal academia. Harvard
Law Review, 103, 1878-1886 (Original work published 1989)
Falk, D., & Aitken, L. (1984). Promoting retention among American Indian college
students. Journal of American Indian Education, 23(2), 24-31.
Fordham, S. (1996). Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity and Success at Capitol
High. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Foley, D. E. (1995). The Heartland Chronicles. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Foley, D. (1996). The silent Indian as cultural production, In B. A. Levinson, D. E. Foley,
& D. C. Holland (Eds.), The cultural production of the educated person (pp. 7992). Albany: SUNY Press.
345
Fox, S. (1999). Student assessment in Indian education or what is a roach? In K. Swisher,
& J. Tippeconnic (Eds.), Next steps: Research and practice to advance Indian
education (pp. 162-178). Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed (New York, The Seabury Press).
Freire, P. (1970а). Education for critical consciousness (New York, Continuum
Publishing Company).
Freire, P. (1970b). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Garland, J.L. (2010). Removing the college involvement research asterisk: Identifying
and rethinking predictors of American Indian college student involvement.
University of Maryland, unpublished dissertation.
Garrett, M. T. (1996). "Two people": An American Indian narrative of bicultural identity.
Journal of American Indian Education, 36(1), 1-21.
Garrod, A., & Larimore, C. (1997). First person, first peoples: Native American college
graduates tell their life stories. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Gloria, A.M. & Robinson Kurpius, S.E. (2001). Influences of self-beliefs, social support
and comfort in the university environment on the academic nonpersistence
decisions of American Indian undergraduates. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 7, 1, p. 88-102. DOI: 10.1037//1099-9809.7.1.88
Gilbert, W. Sakiestewa. 2000. Bridging the gap between high school and college. Journal
of American Indian Education 39(3), 36-58.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and
Garvey.
Gordan, R. (1990). New developments in legal theory. In D. Kairys (Ed.), The politics of
law: A progressive critique (pp. 413-425). New York: Pantheon Books.
Guillory, R., & Wolverton, M. (2008). It’s about family: Native American student
persistence in higher education, Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 56-87.
Hammond, S.A., (1998). The thin book of appreciative inquiry. Bend, OR: Thin Book
Publishing Co.
346
Harcourt, H.G., (1972). Some Cambridge controversies in the Theory of Capital.
Cambridge. Hoover, J. J., & Jacobs, C. C. (1992). A survey of American Indian
college students: Perceptions towards their study skills/college life. Journal of
American Indian Education, 31(3), 21–29.
Harris, A. (1994). Forward: the jurisprudence of reconstruction, California Law Review,
82, 741-785.
Harrison, B., & Papa, R. (2005). The development of an Indigenous Knowledge Program
in a New Zealand Maori-language immersion school. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly 36(1), 57-72.
Hatch, J. (1992). American Indian and Alaska Native adult education and vocational
training programs: Historical beginnings, present conditions and future
directions. (Report No. RC-018-632), Arlington, VA: United States Department
of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document
Reproduction No. ED 343 773)
Hernandez-Truyol, B. (1997). Indivisible identities: Culture clashes, confused constructs
and reality checks, Symposium: LatCrit Theory: Naming and lunching a new
discourse of critical legal scholarship. 2 Harvard Latino Law Review, 199-230.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom (New
York, Routledge).
Guillory, R.M. (2002). Factors related to Native American students’ persistence in
higher education: A comparative analysis of student and state and university
officials’ perceptions. Washington State University, unpublished dissertation.
Huffman, Terry. 2001. "Resistance theory and the transculturation hypothesis as
explanations of college attrition and persistence among culturally traditional
american indian students." Journal of American Indian Education 40(1): 1-23.
Huffman, T. & Ferguson, R., (Spring 2007). Evaluation of the college experience among
American Indian upperclassmen. Great Plains Research, 17, p. 61-71.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Huffman, T. E., Sill, M. L., & Brokenleg, M. (1986). College achievement among Sioux
and White South Dakota students. Journal of American Indian Education, 25(2),
32–38.
Jackson, A., Smith, S., & Hill, C. (2003). Academic persistence among Native American
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44(4), 548-565.
347
Jaimes, A. (1992). Federal Indian identification policy: A usurpation of Indigenous
sovereignty rights in North America. In A. Jaimes (Ed.), The state of Native
America: Genocide, colonization, and resistance (pp. 123-138). Boston: South
End Press.
Jez, S.J. (2008). The influence of wealth and race in four-year college attendance. A
SERUProject Research Paper. Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC
Berkeley. http://cshe.berkeley.edu/ CSHE.18.08.
Kawagley, A. O. (1995). A Yupiaq worldview: A pathway to ecology and spirit. Prospect
Heights, IL: Prospect Waveland.
Kelly, L. (2008). Experiencing higher education in Louisiana through a Native
American Lens. University of New Orleans, unpublished dissertation.
Kerbo, H. (1981). College achievement among Native Americans. Social Forces, 59,
1275-1280.
Kidwell, C. S. (1994). Higher education issues in Native American communities. In M. J.
Justiz, R. Wilson, & L. J. Bjork (Eds.), Minorities in higher education (pp. 239257). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Kleinfeld, J., Cooper, J., and Kyle, N. (1987). Postsecondary counselors: A model for
increasing Native Americans’ college success. Journal of American Indian
Education, 27(1), 9-16.
Jackson, A. P. & Smith, S. A. (2001). Postsecondary transitions among Navajo Indians.
Journal of American Indian Education.
Komlos, B.Z. (2011). Constructing a model of success for first year Native American
college writers. Montana State University, unpublished dissertation.
Krause, D. R. (1987). Factors related to performance of American Indian students.
Unpublished Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
La Capra, D. (1994). Representing the Holocaust: History, theory, trauma. Cornell
University Press.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
348
Lin, R.-L. (1990). Perceptions of family background and personal characteristics among
Indian college students. Journal of American Indian Education, 29(3), 19–26.
Lin, R., LaCounte, D., & Eder, J. (1988). A study of Native American students in a
predominantly White college. Journal of American Indian Education, 27(3), 1928.
Lindley, L.S., (2009). A tribal critical race theory analysis of academic attainment: A
qualitative analysis of sixteen Arapaho women who earned degrees at the
University of Wyoming. Dissertation.
Lomawaima,T. & McCarty, T. (2002). Reliability, validity, and authenticity in American
Indian and Alaska Native research. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and
Small Schools, Charleston,WV, Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED470951&site=ehost-live
Lomawaima, K. (1995). Educating Native Americans. In J. Banks & D. Banks
(Eds.).Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 331-342). New
York: Macmillan.
Lomawaima, K. (1994). They called it prairie light. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Lomay, V.T. (2004). The American Indian college student: an intersection of identity,
education and racism. Arizona State University, unpublished dissertation.
Loo, C.M. & Rollison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a
predominantly White university. Journal of Higher Education
McAfee, M. E. (1997). From their voices: American Indians in higher education and the
phenomenon of stepping out. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Fort Collins,
Colorado. Colorado State University.
McAfee, M. E. (2000). From their voices: American Indians in higher education and the
phenomenon of stepping out. Making Strides, 2(2), 16-25.
McCarty, Teresa L. (2002). A place to be Navajo – Rough Rock and the struggle for selfdetermination in Indigenous schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
349
Medicine, B. (with Sue Ellen Jacobs). (2001). My elders tell me. In Learning to be an
Anthropologist and Remaining “Native” (pp. 73-82). Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Meriam, L. (1928). The problem of Indian administration. Institute for Government
Research. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Milem, J. F., and Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in higher
education. In D. J. Wilds (ed.), Minorities in Higher Education 1999–2000 (pp.
39–67). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory
into Practice, 31(2), 132-140. 237.
Montgomery, D; Miville, M. L., Winterowd, C., Jeffries B., & Baysden, M. (2000).
American Indian college students: An exploration into resiliency factors revealed
through personal stories. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 4,
pp. 387-398.
Montoya, M. (1994). Mascaras, trenzes, y grenas: un/masking the self while un/braiding
Latina stories and legal discourse. Chicano-Latino Law Review, 15, 1-37.
Moran, R., Rampey, B.D., Dion, G., Donahue, P. (2008). National Indian Education
Study 2007 Part I: Performance of American Indian and Alaska Native Students
at Grades 4 and 8 on NAEP 2007 Reading and Mathematics Assessments (NCES
2008–457). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Murguia, E., Padilla, R. V., & Pavel, M. (1991). Ethnicity and the Concept of Social
Integration in Tinto's Model of Institutional Departure. Journal of College Student
Development, 32, 433-439.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Integrated postsecondary education
data system. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/about/
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2008). Digest of Educational Statistics. Status
and Trends in the Education of American Indians and Alaska Native. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/
National Center for Education Statistics (2002). The Condition of Education.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002025.pdf
350
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Digest of Educational Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/digest/02/346 J. J. Saggio
Nevarez, C. & Wood, L.J. (2010). Community college leadership and administration:
Theory, practice and change. New York; Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Nichols, S. & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts
America's schools. Cambridge: MA: Harvard Education Press.
Noel, J. (2002). Education toward cultural shame: A century of Native American
education. Educational Foundations, 16(1), 19-32.
O'Brien, E. M. (1990). A foot in each world: American Indians striving to succeed in
higher education. Black Issues in Higher Education, 7, 27-31.
Ogbu, J. (1993). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an
explanation. In E. Jacob, & C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological
perspectives (pp. 83-111). New York: Ablex.
Ogbu, J., & Simmons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A culturalecological theory of school performance with some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Ogbu, J. (1987). Variability in minority responses to schooling: A problem in search of
an explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18, 312-334.
Olivas, M. A. (1990). The chronicles, my Grandfather’s stories, and Immigration law:
The slave traders chronicle as racial history. Saint Louis University Law Journal,
34, 425-441.
Oosahwe, E.S.L. (2008). Strategizing success: Narratives of Native American Students
in Higher Education. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
Oppelt, N. (1990). Cultural values and behaviors common among tribal American
Indians: A resource for student service administrators. NASPA Journal, 26(3),
167-174, 239.
Ortiz, A. M., & HeavyRunner, I. (2003). Student access, retention, and success: Models
of inclusion and support. In M.K.P. Ah Nee-Benham & W.J.Stein (Eds.), The
renaissance of American Indian higher education: Capturing the dream (pp. 215240), Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.
351
Parker, L. (1998). “Race is…race ain’t”: An exploration of the utility of critical race
theory in qualitative research in education. Qualitative Studies in Education,
11(1), 43-55.
Pavel, D. M., & Padilla, R. V. (1993). American Indian and Alaska Native Postsecondary
Departure: An example of assessing a mainstream model using national
longitudinal data. Journal of American Indian Education.
Pewewardy, C., & Frey, B. (2004). American Indian students' perceptions of racial
climate, multicultural support services, and ethnic fraud at predominantly White
universities. Journal of American Indian Education, 43(1), 32-60.
Philips, S. U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community
on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press
Ponterotto, J. G. (1990). Racial/ethnic minority and women students in higher education:
A status report. New Directions for Student Services, 52, 45-59.
Pope, M. (2002). Community College Mentoring: Minority student perception.
Community College Review, 30(3), 31-45.
Powless, K. (2008). The Clark’s program: a potential retention linkage for the Native
American student in the university setting.
Pratt, R.H. (1892). Official Report of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of Charities
and Correction (1892), 46–59. Reprinted in Richard H. Pratt, The Advantages of
Mingling Indians with Whites, Americanizing the American Indians: Writings by
the “Friends of the Indian” 1880–1900 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1973), pg. 260–271.
Prucha, F.P. (1979). The churches and the Indian schools, 1888-1912. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
Raymond, J. H. (2004). A history of American Indian Tribal Colleges. Wilmington
College, unpublished dissertation.
Reddy, M. A. (Ed.). (1993). Statistical record of native North Americans. Washington,
DC: Gale Research.
Red Leaf, B. T. (1999). Retention and attrition patterns at a selected tribal college.
Unpublished Dissertation, The University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD.
352
Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study
of minority student retention in higher education. In J. Braxton (ed.), Reworking
the student departure puzzle. Nashville, N: Vanderbilt University Press
Reyhner, J., & Dodd, J. (1995). Factors affecting the retention of American Indian and
Alaska Native Students in higher education. Paper presented at the First Annual
Expanding Minority Opportunities National Conference, Arizona State
University,Tempe, AZ.
Reyhner, J. (1992). American Indians out of school: A review of school-based causes and
solutions. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(3), 37-56.
Riding, L. D. (2010). On their own: How thirty-one tribal colleges address five
educational concepts. University of North Texas, unpublished dissertation.
Rindone, P. (1988). Achievement, motivation, and academic achievement of Native
American students. Journal of American Indian Education, 28(1), 1-7.
Rousey, A. & Longie, E. (2001). The Tribal College as family support system.
American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 9, pp 1492-1504. Sage publication. DOI:
10.1177/00027640121956926.
Saggio, J. J. (2004). American Indian College. Retrieved March 26, 2010 from
http://www.aicag.edu
Sanders, D. (1987). Cultural conflicts: An important factor in the academic failures of
American Indian students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
15, 81-90.
Schmidtke, C. (2008). Success factors for American Indian students at a subbaccalaureate technical college. Oklahoma State University, OK; unpublished
dissertation.
Sheets, R. (2003). Competency vs. good intentions: Diversity ideologies and teacher
potential. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 16(1),
111-120. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url=http://searchebscohost.com/login.aspx?d
irect=true&db=aph&AN=9687434&site=ehost-live
Shotton, H. J. (2008). Pathway to the PH.D.: Experiences of high-achieving American
Indian Females. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, unpublished
dissertation.
353
Smith Bontempi, E. (2006). The school experiences of Native American and Alaska
Native students: A closer look at self-determination theory. University of
Oklahoma, Norman Oklahoma, unpublished dissertation.
Solórzano, D., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance
through a Critical Race and LatCrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano
students in an urban context. Urban Education, 36(3), 308-342.
Solorzano, D. (1998). Critical Race Theory, racial and gender micro-aggressions, and the
experiences of Chicana and Chicano Scholars, International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 121-136.
Solorzano, D. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical Race Theory, racial
stereotyping and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24, 5-19. 243.
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial micro
aggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American
college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 41, 171-187.
Solorzano, D., & Yosso, T. (2002) Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
244.
Solorzano, D. & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse
toward a critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(1),
2–8.
Spring, J., (1997). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the
education of dominated cultures in the United States (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Stannard, D. E. (1992). American Holocaust: Columbus and the conquest of the new
world. New York: Oxford Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., (2001) Manufacturing hope and despair: the school and kin
support networks of US-Mexican youth (New York, Teachers college Press).
Starks, J. E. (2010). Factors influencing the decisions of Native Americans to attend or
not attend college or vocational school: A phenomenological study. Dissertation.
Starnes, B. (2006). What we don‘t know can hurt them: White teachers, Indian children.
Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 384-392.
354
Stavros, J., & Hinrichs, G., (2009). The thin book of soar: Building strengths-based
strategy. Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishing Co.
Stoney Brook. Diversity and Affirmative Action: Glossary of Affirmative action Terms.
Retrieved September 19, 2011.
http://www.stonybrook.edu/diversity/resources/glosary.html
Swisher, K., & Tippeconnic, J. (1999). Research to support improved practice in Indian
education. In K. Swisher, & J. Tippeconnic (Eds.), Next steps: Research and
practice to advance Indian education (pp. 295-307). Charleston, WV: Appalachia
Educational Laboratory.
Tate, D. S., & Schwartz, C. L. (1993). Increasing the retention of American Indian
students in professional programs in higher education. Journal of American
Indian Education, 33(1), 21-31.
Thomason, T. C, & Thurber, H. J. (1999) Strategies for the Recruitment and Retention of
Native American Students. Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 435514).
Tierney, W. G. (1995) Addressing failure: Factors affecting Native American college
student retention. Journal of Navajo Education, 13(1), 3-7.
Tierney, W. G. (1993). The college experience of Native Americans: A critical analysis.
In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in
the United States schools (pp. 309-323). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Tierney, W. G. (1992a). Official encouragement, institutional discouragement: Minorities
in academe-the Native American experience. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing.
Tierney, W. G. (1992b). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618.
Tijerina, K., & Biemer, P. ( 1988). The dance of Indian higher education. Education
Record, 68(4), 87-93.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
355
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tippeconnic, J. (2000). Reflecting on the past: Some important aspects of Indian
education to consider as we look toward the future. Journal of American Indian
Education, 39(2), 39-48.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Brief: Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
U. S. Bureau of Census (2005). U.S. Census Bureau News. [Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/population/006808.h
tml]
U.S. Commission of Civil Rights (2003). A quiet crisis: Federal funding and unmet
needs in Indian Country. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Services (2004). Trends
in Indian Health, 2000-2001. Office of Public Health, Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Velez-Ibanez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of
knowledge among U.S.-Mexican Households. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 23(4), 313-335. 247
Villalpando, O. (2004). Practical considerations of Critical Race Theory and Latino
critical theory for Latino college students. New Directions for Student Services,
105(Spring), 41-50.
Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and
Latina/ocritical theory analysis of findings from a longitudinal study of Chicana/o
college students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(5),
619–646.
Viri, D. F. (1990). Subjective realities of American Indian students in an urban
community college: A Tohono O'odham case study (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Arizona, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 94A.
356
Vizenor, G. (1999). Manifest manners: Narratives on postIndian survivance. Lincoln:
The University of Nebraska Press.
Vizenor, G. (1998). Fugitive poses: Native American Indian scenes of absence and
presence. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Vizenor, G., & Lee, A. (1999). PostIndian conversations. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Waller, M. A., Okamoto, S. K., & Hankerson, A. A. (2002). The Hoop of Learning: A
holistic, Multisystemic model for facilitating educational resilience among
Indigenous students. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare.
Warrior, R. A. (1995). Tribal Secrets: Recovering American Indian intellectual
traditions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Waterman, S. (2007). A complex path to degree completion. Journal of American Indian
Education, 46(1), 20-40. 248
Waterman, S. (2004). The Haudenosaunee College experience: A complex path to degree
completion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Syracuse University, Syracuse,
New York.
Wentzlaff, T. L., & Brewer, A. (1996). Native American students define factors for
success. Tribal College, 7(4), 40-44.
Whitbeck, L., Hoyt, D., Stubben, J., & LaFramboise, T. (2001). Traditional culture and
academic success among American Indian children in the upper Midwest. Journal
of American Indian Education, 40(2), 49-60.
White, P. M. III. (2007). Assessing the factors that affect the persistence and graduation
rates of Native American students in postsecondary education. Bowling Green
State University, unpublished dissertation.
Williams, R. (1987). Jefferson, the Norman Yoke, and American Indian lands. Arizona
Law Review, 2, 165–194.
Wilson, P. (1991). Trauma of Sioux Indian high school students. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 22(4), 367-383. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195660
Wright, B. (1985). Programming success: Special student services and the American
Indian college student. Journal of American Indian Education, 24, 1-7.
357
Wright, B., & Tierney, W. (1991). American Indians in Higher Education: A history of
cultural conflict. Change, 23 (March/April), 11-18.
Yagi, K. (1985). Indian education act project in the Portland public schools 1984-1985
evaluation report. Portland, OR: Portland Public Schools.
Yosso, T. (2006). Critical race counter stories along the Chicana/Chicano educational
pipeline. New York: Routledge.
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
Young, W. M. (2010). An investigation of exemplary teaching practices of teachers of
Native American Students. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, unpublished
dissertation.